Marinez-Lobato v. Noem et al

1
3:26-cv-00541-RBM-DEB
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
MARIO MARINEZ-LOBATO,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00541-RBM-DEB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mario Marinez-Lobato’s (“Petitioner”)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Doc. 1.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a Mexican national, last entered the United States in 2012. (Doc. 1 ¶ 16.)1
Petitioner was detained by Respondents on December 3, 2025. 	(Id. ¶ 2.) 	Since then,
Petitioner has remained detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center pending removal
proceedings. (Id. ¶ 8.) “Petitioner previously filed a custody redetermination request under
1 The Court cites the paragraph numbers of the Petition and the CM/ECF electronic
pagination for other citations unless otherwise noted.
Case 3:26-cv-00541-RBM-DEB Document 5 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00541-RBM-DEB
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
8 C.F.R. § 1236 through former counsel, but that request was withdrawn.” (Id. ¶ 3.)
On January 28, 2026, Petitioner commenced this action by filing the instant Petition.
(Doc. 1.) 	The Court issued an Order to Show Cause and set a briefing schedule shortly
thereafter. (Doc. 2.) Respondents filed a Response to Petition on February 4, 2026. (Doc.
4.) Petitioner had until February 9, 2026 to file an optional reply (see Doc. 2 at 2), but did
not do so.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” 	Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl.
2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of
that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims he is being detained in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 	(Doc. 1 ¶¶ 23–34.) 	Respondents concede that
Petitioner, as a class member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz,
— F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and therefore entitled to a bond hearing. (Doc. 4 at 2.) While Petitioner requests
his immediate release from custody (see Doc. 1 at ¶ 4), he fails to advance any arguments
in support of his request. 	Because the Parties agree Petitioner is detained under § 1226,
the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. 2
2 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining
grounds for relief.
Case 3:26-cv-00541-RBM-DEB Document 5 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00541-RBM-DEB
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART. To
the extent Petitioner requests to be immediately released from custody, the Petition is
DENIED. Accordingly, the Court further ORDERS as follows:
1. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days of the entry of this Order. 	At the bond hearing,
Respondents shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight. 3
Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that his detention
is governed by the mandatory detention provision under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
2. If the bond hearing is not conducted within seven days of the entry of this Order,
Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody until it is determined that his
detention is warranted under § 1226(a).
3. Respondents SHALL FILE 	a status report on or before March 6, 2026,
indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 20, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other
grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018)).
Case 3:26-cv-00541-RBM-DEB Document 5 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3