Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-1178-CAB-MSB
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
MAXIMILIANO ADEMIR CORONADO
TIPIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER,
Director, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1178-CAB-MSB
ORDER GRANTING A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Maximiliano Ademir Coronado Tipian’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).]
Petitioner alleges that he entered the United States in October 2023 seeking asylum, was
released to continue his immigration proceedings outside detention, and then was re-
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on July 3, 2025 upon exiting
his immigration hearing. 	[Id. at 2.] 	On January 7, 2026, an immigration judge denied
asylum and ordered Petitioner removed. [Id.] Petitioner has appealed that decision to the
Board of Immigration Appeals. 	[Id.] 	Petitioner claims that his detention violates the
Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments and seeks immediate release or a prompt bond
hearing. [Id. at 2–4.]
Case 3:26-cv-01178-CAB-MSB Document 7 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-1178-CAB-MSB
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
Respondents do not contest any of Petitioner’s asserted facts. [Doc. No. 5.] Nor do
Respondents make any legal arguments against Petitioner’s claims that his detention
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [See id.; see also Petition at 2–
3.] Instead, Respondents say that Petitioner is entitled to an order from this Court directing
that a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the final judgment in
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3289861
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). [Doc. No. 5 at 2.] Petitioner replies that waiting fourteen days
for a bond hearing is unreasonable under the circumstances of his prolonged detention and
immediate release is appropriate. [Doc. No. 6 at 1–2.]
In light of Petitioner’s unrefuted facts and legal claim under the Fifth Amendment,
the Court GRANTS a writ of habeas corpus based on the reasoning the Court has
articulated in similar cases. 	E.g., Tokhi v. LaRose, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-0803-CAB-
VET (S.D. Cal. Feb 19, 2026). The Court therefore ORDERS Respondents to immediately
release Petitioner under the same conditions of release that existed immediately prior to his
July 3, 2025 re-detention. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 17, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01178-CAB-MSB Document 7 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2