The Ma v. Larose et al

1 26-cv-1077-AGS-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
Vinh The MA,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher J. LaROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1077-AGS-MMP
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Vinh The Ma seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free
him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is
sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. 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.
In March 2025, Ma, a “citizen of Vietnam,” “entered the United States,” was
“apprehended by [the Department of Homeland Security],” and was “placed in detention,
where he remains today.” (ECF 1, at 3.) He argues that his detention since that day “under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)”—for nearly a year “without an individualized bond hearing”—
“violates due process.” (Id. at 4–6.)
This challenge warrants an answer. Some courts have concluded that prolonged
detention can violate due process even for those 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)
Case 3:26-cv-01077-AGS-MMP Document 2 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 26-cv-1077-AGS-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
(“[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
bond hearing violates due process.”). So, by February 24, 2026, the government must
answer. Any reply by the petitioner is due February 27, 2026, and the Court will hold a
hearing on March 3, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.
Dated: February 20, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01077-AGS-MMP Document 2 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2