Valido Mesa v. Larose et al

1
26-cv-0489-AGS-KSC
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
Rodney VALIDO MESA,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher J. LaROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0489-AGS-KSC
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
AND DENYING AS MOOT SHOW
CAUSE MOTION (ECF 2)
Petitioner Rodney Valido Mesa seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 to free him from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.) At this stage, he need only
make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary
dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules
permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth,
114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any
potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
On January 15, 2025, Valido Mesa, an “asylum seeker from Cuba,” “arrived in the
United States.” (ECF 1, at 2.) He has been detained since, “[d]espite winning protection
against removal to Cuba based on persecution he suffered for his political opinion.” (Id.)
He argues that his “prolonged detention is causing him tremendous and ongoing harm and
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” (Id.)
This claim is not frivolous. After all, some courts have concluded that prolonged
detention can violate due process, even for arriving aliens subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal.
2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding that an
unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized
Case 3:26-cv-00489-AGS-KSC Document 3 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0489-AGS-KSC
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
bond hearing violates due process.”). Thus, the government must respond.
By February 17, 2026, respondents must file their return. Any traverse must be filed
by February 24, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the petition on March 4,
2026, at 11:30 a.m. In light of the briefing schedule, petitioner’s motion for an order to
show cause (ECF 2) is denied as moot.
Dated: January 28, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00489-AGS-KSC Document 3 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2