Alarcon-Galvez v. LaRose et al

1
3:25-cv-3671-JES-BLM
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
CIPRIANO ALARCON-GALVEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE; DANIEL A.
BRIGHTMAN; TODD M. LYONS;
KRISTI NOEM; PAMELA BONDI; and
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-931-JES-MMP
ORDER FOR BOND HEARING
Before the Court is Petitioner Cipriano Alarcon-Galvez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Before the Court issued an Order to
Show Cause, Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 1. In the return, Respondents
acknowledged that Petitioner must be considered detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),
pursuant to the final judgment entered in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-
01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3289861 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the petition as follows:
//
Case 3:26-cv-00931-JES-MMP Document 3 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-3671-JES-BLM
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
(1) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond
determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of this Order.
At the hearing, Respondents may not deny Petitioner bond on the basis that
he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); and
(2) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within five days
of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing, including
apprising the Court of the results of the hearing with a copy of the immigration
judge’s bond order.
(3) To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending final resolution of this matter,
Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or this District unless
and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-
BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts
retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending
resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412,
ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a
Temporary restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and
ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and
all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing
Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order
of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding
that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent
irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the
matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3
(W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing
Petitioner without approval from the court).
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-00931-JES-MMP Document 3 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-3671-JES-BLM
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
Pending the status report, the Court will hold in abeyance the merits of the remainder of
the relief Petitioner requests in his petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00931-JES-MMP Document 3 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3