Morales Castillo v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

1
26-cv-671-JES-JLB
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
IRVIN HUMBERTO MORALES
CASTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-671-JES-JLB
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Irvin Humberto Morales Castillo’s (“Petitioner”)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1.
Petitioner is a native of El Salvador who is currently being detained at Otay Mesa
Detention Center. ECF No. 1 at 1. He claims to have been detained since October 15, 2025.
Id. Petitioner argues that his detention is arbitrary and prolonged, violating due process
under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id.
Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ
or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,
unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations
in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”
Case 3:26-cv-00671-JES-JLB Document 2 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-671-JES-JLB
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
Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)).
Here, the only fact that Petitioner has presented to the Court is long how he has been
detained. In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that when the government is unable to
remove an alien within 90 days, the alien may seek review of the reasonableness of their
continued detention under the due process clause through petition for writ of habeas corpus.
533 U.S. at 687. The Court instructed habeas courts to analyze whether continued detention
beyond the 90-day period “exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal,”
based on “the [removal detention] statute’s basic purpose, namely, assuring the alien’s
presence at the moment of removal.” Id. at 699. The Court has held that it is presumptively
reasonable for the government to detain an alien for a period of 6 months while it works to
effectuate his removal after issuing a final order of removal against him. Id. at 701. Beyond
that period, “if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued
detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute” and grant the petition for writ
of habeas corpus. Id. at 699-700.
Thus, under the Zadvydas framework and assuming it applies,1 Petitioner’s
detention—which is still under four-months at this time—is still presumptively reasonable.
Petitioner raises no further arguments why his detention is unlawful. Without more
information,2 the Court cannot find that he states a claim in his petition as it stands.
//
//
//
//
1 Petitioner does not tell the Court whether he has a final order of removal against him, and
Zadvydas only calculates length of detention from the date of the final order of removal.
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682.
2 For example, Petitioner does not indicate how he entered the United States in the first
place, whether he was ever given any parole, the manner under which he was detained on
October 15, 2025, or what stage his removal proceedings are currently at.
Case 3:26-cv-00671-JES-JLB Document 2 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-671-JES-JLB
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
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00671-JES-JLB Document 2 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3