Rodas-Dieguez v. Noem et al

1
3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP
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
ANDRES RODAS-DIEGUEZ
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP
ORDER 	GRANTING 	PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Andres Rodas-Dieguez’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 Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States in 1986 without being
admitted or paroled. (See id. ¶¶ 41, 57.)1 He has resided in this country since then and is
the father of a United States citizen. 	(Id. ¶ 41.) 	On January 28, 2026, Petitioner was
1 The Court cites the paragraph numbers of the Petition and the CM/ECF electronic
pagination for all other filings.
Case 3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP
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
arrested by immigration authorities and placed in removal proceedings. (Id. ¶ 42.) To date,
he has not received a bond hearing, claiming that “immigration courts are refusing to hold
bond hearings in reliance on Matter of Yajure Hurtado.” (Id. ¶ 45.)
On February 16, 2026, Petitioner filed his Petition. (Doc. 1.) Shortly thereafter, the
Court issued an Order to Show Cause and set a briefing schedule. (Doc. 2.) On February
25, 2026, Respondents filed their Response to Petition. (Doc. 3.) The next day, Petitioner
filed his Traverse. (Doc. 5.)
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 that his detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and the court’s orders in
Bautista v. Santacruz.2 (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 46–61.) 	Respondents concede “that Petitioner is
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court directing a
bond hearing.” 	(Doc. 3 at 2.) 	But Petitioner argues that the Court should order his
immediate release. (Doc. 1, Prayer for Relief ¶ c; Doc. 5 at 2–3.) Because the Parties agree
that Petitioner is detained under § 1226, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
2 See Bautista v. Santacruz, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25,
2025).
Case 3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP
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
The Court also agrees that Petitioner is entitled to immediate release.3 To the extent
Respondents argue that Petitioner is entitled only to a bond hearing, this argument
“misapprehend[s] the purpose of a pre-detention hearing: if Petitioner is detained, he will
already have suffered the injury he is now seeking to avoid.” Jorge M.F. v. Jennings, 534
F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2021); see also E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d
1316, 1324 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“Although the Government notes that Petitioner may
request a bond hearing while detained, such a post-deprivation hearing cannot serve as an
adequate procedural safeguard because it is after the fact and cannot prevent an erroneous
deprivation of liberty.”); Domingo v. Kaiser, Case No. 25-cv-05893 (RFL), 2025 WL
1940179, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) (“Even if Petitioner[ ] received a prompt post-
detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was released at that point, he will
have already suffered the harm that is the subject of his motion; that is, his potentially
erroneous detention.”).
IV. 	CONCLUSION4
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly:
1. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody.
2. The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner shall
receive a hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to
determine whether detention is warranted. 	Respondents shall bear the burden of
establishing, by clear and convincing evidence,5 that Petitioner poses a danger to the
3 Other courts have granted immediate release under nearly identical circumstances. See,
e.g., Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01318-DC-CKD (HC), 2026 WL 496948, at *5 (E.D.
Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (“Because Respondents do not assert any alternative basis for
Petitioner’s detention, and do not provide any extenuating circumstances that would
warrant Petitioner’s continued unlawful detention pending a bond hearing, the court finds
that the appropriate relief is Petitioner’s immediate release.”).
4 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining
grounds for relief.
5 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
Case 3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP
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
community or a risk of flight.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 27, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2025) (“Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which
Respondents must justify her continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”)
(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) (explaining that “the substantial liberty
interest at stake” warranted placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and
convincing evidence that [a noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to
justify denial of bond”).
Case 3:26-cv-00976-RBM-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4