Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-00526-RBM-BJW
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
TIAKO LIENDJI ROLAND CABREL,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00526-RBM-BJW
ORDER REQUIRING STATUS
REPORT
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Tiako Liendji Roland Cabrel’s (“Petitioner”)
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). 	(Doc. 1.)
Petitioner claims that his continued detention without a bond hearing has become
unreasonably prolonged in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Id.
at 2, 6–7.) Respondents argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s
claims, and that even if it did, Petitioner’s detention has not become unreasonably
prolonged under the relevant test. (See Doc. 6 at 4–16 (discussing factors under Lopez v.
Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022)).) 	The Court requires additional
information to rule on the issues raised in the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Cameroon who entered the United States on April 28, 2025.
Case 3:26-cv-00526-RBM-BJW Document 8 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00526-RBM-BJW
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
(Doc. 6 at 3 (citing Doc. 6-1 at 3–4).)1 Petitioner “was originally processed for expedited
removal, but he was never removed.” 	(Id.) 	Petitioner was later determined to be
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and taken into Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) custody pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (Doc. 6 at 3.) 	Petitioner
was then issued a Notice to Appear, which initiated removal proceedings against him under
§ 1229a. 	(Id. (citing Doc. 6-1 at 6 [Notice to Appear])) 	As of February 19, 2026,
“Petitioner’s removal proceedings remain[ed] pending, and his individual merits hearing
[was] scheduled for February 24, 2026.” (Doc. 6 at 3–4.)
B. 	Procedural Background
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the Petition on January 23, 2026. 	(Doc. 1.)
Shortly thereafter, the Court set a briefing schedule. 	(Doc. 4.) 	Respondents filed their
Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on February 19, 2026. (Doc. 6.) 	Petitioner
was authorized to file a reply on or before March 5, 2026, but did not file one.
II. 	DISCUSSION
First, 	the 	Court 	has 	consistently 	rejected 	Respondents’ 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1252(g)
jurisdictional argument, see Constantinovici v. Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1161–62 (S.D.
Cal. 2025), and does so again here for the same reasons. Petitioner challenges violations
of ICE’s duties under the Constitution. 	He is thus enforcing his “constitutional rights to
due process in the context of the removal proceedings—not the legitimacy of the removal
proceedings or any removal order.” 	Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1074 (S.D.
Cal. 2025) (emphasis in original).
Second, the Court requires additional information to rule on the Petition. Although
Respondents argue that, if the Court should reach the issue of prolonged detention, it should
apply the Lopez factors, Lopez concerned a petitioner detained under § 1226. 	See Lopez,
631 F. Supp. 3d at 879 (“To determine whether § 1226(c) detention has become
1 The Court cites the CM/ECF electronic pagination for filings unless otherwise noted.
Case 3:26-cv-00526-RBM-BJW Document 8 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00526-RBM-BJW
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
unreasonable . . . .”). 	Therefore, the Court applies the six-factor balancing test used by
courts analyzing prolonged detention under § 1225(b). See Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp.
3d 768, 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020). 	Under this test, which shares significant overlap with the
Lopez factors, the Court considers:
(1) the total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future
detention; (3) conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings
caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the
government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in
a final order of removal.
Gao v. LaRose, 805 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2025).
The Court lacks sufficient information regarding the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth
factors because, in the time since the Petition became fully briefed, Petitioner had a
scheduled merits hearing. 	(See Doc. 6 at 4 (noting Petitioner’s merits hearing was
scheduled for February 24, 2026).) 	Respondents argue that Petitioner’s “immigration
proceedings are finite and have a definite ending point (though the exact date is unknown).”
(Doc. 6 at 14 (emphasis in original).)
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Respondents to FILE a supplemental status report
on or before March 31, 2026. 	The status report shall indicate: (1) whether Petitioner’s
merits hearing occurred on February 24, 2026 and, if so, the outcome of that hearing; (2) if
it did not, when the merits hearing was rescheduled and why it was rescheduled;
(3) whether there are further hearings scheduled; (4) whether Petitioner has appealed, or
may appeal, the outcome of any of these hearings; and (5) anything else relevant to the
Court’s consideration of the Kydyrali factors.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 23, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00526-RBM-BJW Document 8 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3