Pena v. Noem et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jose Guadalupe Castro Pena,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01846-PHX-KML (JZB)
ORDER
Through counsel, petitioner Jose Guadalupe Castro Pena filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. (Doc. 1.) On March 20, 2026, the court granted the petition and ordered
respondents to “provide petitioner a bond redetermination hearing within seven days or
release petitioner from custody.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) The court entered judgment and closed the
case the same day. (Doc. 8.) On May 14, 2026, petitioner filed a pro se “Motion to Enforce
Judgment.” (Doc. 14.) That motion states petitioner received a bond hearing but he “was
effectively deprived of meaningful representation after counsel failed to appear at the
hearing due to an unexpected emergency” involving counsel’s vehicle. (Doc. 14 at 1-2.)
The Immigration Judge proceeded with the hearing despite petitioner’s counsel failure to
appear. The Immigration Judge denied bond “based on a finding that Petitioner allegedly
constituted a flight risk.” (Doc. 14 at 2.) Petitioner requests the court “[e]nforce its prior
habeas judgment” and either grant another bond hearing or order his release. (Doc. 14 at
4.)
Respondents filed an opposition arguing it is “an undisputed fact that Respondents
Case 2:26-cv-01846-KML--JZB Document 17 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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
have complied in full with the Court’s order” and “[t]here is nothing left for this Court to
enforce.” (Doc. 15 at 2.) Respondents also argue the court lacks jurisdiction to review
petitioner’s challenge “to the adequacy of the [the] bond proceedings.” (Doc. 15 at 2.)
Shortly after respondents’ filing, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw claiming
she “was not retained to represent Petitioner in any post-judgment or enforcement
proceedings.” (Doc. 16 at 1.) Neither petitioner nor his counsel filed a reply in support of
the motion to enforce.
This habeas petition was filed, briefed, and resolved based on petitioner’s assertion
that he was entitled to a bond hearing. The final judgment required respondents provide
petitioner a bond hearing, and respondents did so. There is no indication respondents took
any action intended to frustrate the exact terms or spirit of the judgment. See Epic Games,
Inc. v. Apple Inc., 161 F.4th 1162, 1176 (9th Cir. 2025) (“courts can find a breach of the
decree in a violation of the spirit of the injunction, even though its strict letter may not have
been disregarded”) (simplified). Instead, the issue petitioner complains of appears to have
been solely attributable to his counsel. In these circumstances, respondents have complied
with the final judgment and the motion to enforce is denied. Counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Enforce (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
The docket should reflect petitioner’s mailing address: Jose Guadalup Castro-Pena, A 221-
325-560, Eloy Detention Center, 1705 East Hanna Road, Eloy AZ 85131.
Dated this 1st day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01846-KML--JZB Document 17 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 2