Pluas Urena v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
26-cv-323-JO-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEFFERSON FABIAN PLUAS URENA,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-323-JO-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[DKT. 1]
Petitioner Jefferson Fabian Pluas Urena, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus. Dkt. 1. The Court held oral argument on February 9, 2026. For reasons
stated on the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s constitutional
challenges to his detention for the same reasons stated in its prior decision in
Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2–*3
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026).
2. Petitioner alleges that he is detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center
located in San Diego, California but does not name the warden of this facility,
Case 3:26-cv-00323-JO-DDL Document 6 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-323-JO-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Christopher Larose, as a Respondent. Dkt. 1. Given Petitioner’s pro se status
and his clear indication that he seeks release from the Otay Mesa Detention
Center, the Court liberally construes his petition as having named the warden
of that facility. 	The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to add
“Christopher Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center” to the caption
as a Respondent.
3. In light of Respondents’ stipulation to waive any requirements for further
service, the Court proceeded to rule on the merits of Petitioner’s habeas
petition.
4. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s habeas petition [Dkt. 1].
5. Respondents, within fourteen (14) days of this order, SHALL provide
Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration
judge where the Government bears the burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight
risk that cannot reasonably be addressed by bond or conditional release. See
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). Respondents SHALL
NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) requires or
authorizes mandatory detention. 	The immigration judge must consider
Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternatives to bond as necessary in
setting conditions of release. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000
(9th Cir. 2017).
6. If no hearing occurs within fourteen (14) days of this order, Petitioner SHALL
be released from Respondents’ custody by 5 p.m. on the fifteenth (15) day
following this order.
7. Respondents shall file a declaration by 5 p.m. on the sixteenth (16) day
following this order (February 25, 2026) stating either the results of any bond
Case 3:26-cv-00323-JO-DDL Document 6 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-323-JO-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hearing conducted pursuant to this order or, if no bond hearing was held,
confirm that Petitioner has been released.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00323-JO-DDL Document 6 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3