Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv1106
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
RUBEN JOSE GAITAN AMADOR,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-01106-BAS-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Ruben Jose Gaitan Amador filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that he was improperly detained after making a
wrong turn onto a marine base, and that he should be released pending his asylum case.
(ECF No. 1.) 	The Government’s Response was exceedingly unhelpful, stating only that
Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, but that it recognizes
that in the past the Court had found 8 U.S.C. § 1226 to be applicable in other cases.
In light of the unhelpful briefing from either party, the Court referred the case to
Federal Defenders for possible appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 6.) Federal Defenders
filed a Traverse with an attached Declaration from Petitioner, arguing that Petitioner’s re-
Case 3:26-cv-01106-BAS-DDL Document 13 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

- 2 - 26cv1106
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
detention after his release on parole violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and
the Due Process Clause. (ECF No. 10.) In light of what appeared to be new arguments in
the Traverse, the Court gave the Government the opportunity to file a Sur-Reply. 	(ECF
No. 11.) The Government declined to do so.
I. 	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). 	“The traditional function of the
writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484
(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or
she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It
applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,
687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he
has standing to pursue this Petition.
II. 	STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, a citizen of Nicaragua, entered the United States on November 6, 2022,
and was paroled into the United States one day later to enable him to pursue an asylum
petition. (ECF No. 10-1.) Petitioner filed his asylum petition and complied with all of the
conditions of his release. (Id.) He has not committed any crimes. (Id.) On January 22,
2026, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) re-detained Petitioner without notice
or an opportunity to be heard and without any changed circumstances with respect to his
flight risk or danger to the community. 	(Id.) 	Petitioner seeks immediate release from
immigration custody.
III. 	ANALYSIS
Although the Government seems to agree that Petitioner may be entitled to a bond
hearing, it bases its concession on the belief that Petitioner was arrested in the interior of
the United States and, thus, pursuant to the reasoning of Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz,
__ F. Supp. 3d___, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), may be subject to a
hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226. 	(ECF No. 4.) 	However, the Maldonado Bautista
Case 3:26-cv-01106-BAS-DDL Document 13 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

- 3 - 26cv1106
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
reasoning only applies to individuals who entered without inspection and were not
apprehended upon arrival. 	Id. 	Petitioner was apprehended at the border upon arrival, so
the reasoning of Maldonado Bautista is inapplicable.
Nonetheless, 	this 	Court 	finds 	Petitioner’s 	re-detention 	without 	notice 	or 	an
opportunity to be heard and without noticeably changed circumstances violates Petitioner’s
due process rights.
Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a
liberty interest in continued liberty. 	See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482
(1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). 	Thus, this Court agrees with those
courts that have held:
[O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from
rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather,
the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed
circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or
has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if
the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his
rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge.
Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet
v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026)
(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the
government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting
Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))).
Because DHS released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger
to the community in November 2022, and because there is no evidence those circumstances
have changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was
initially released. If DHS believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of
Case 3:26-cv-01106-BAS-DDL Document 13 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

- 4 - 26cv1106
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
these changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard
promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ:
The Court ORDERS Ruben Jose Gaitan Amador (A# 246-231-433) be
released forthwith on the same terms and conditions as he was ordered
released in November 2022.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 25, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-01106-BAS-DDL Document 13 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4