Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01480-CAB-AHG
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
GEORGE MAISURADZE,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01480-CAB-AHG
ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING
TRO AS MOOT
[Doc. Nos. 1, 2]
Petitioner George Maisuradze (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	[Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 	Petitioner also filed a
related motion for a temporary restraining order. [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”).] Petitioner entered
the United States on December 24, 2021 after fleeing the country of Georgia. [Petition at
2.] 	Petitioner was released from custody on his own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a). [Id.] On February 21, 2026, Petitioner alleges he was arrested by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) while driving home. [Id. at 2, 19.]
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Case 3:26-cv-01480-CAB-AHG Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01480-CAB-AHG
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
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Respondents do not contest any of Petitioners’ asserted facts. [Doc. No. 5.] Nor do
Respondents make any legal arguments against Petitioner’s claims that his detention
violates the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the
Immigration and Nationality Act. Instead, Respondents say that Petitioner is entitled to a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be
“deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of
physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This protection applies to noncitizens as it does to U.S. citizens.
See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (“[E]ven aliens shall not . . . be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”).
“Courts have previously found that individuals released from immigration custody
on bond have a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody[.]” Valencia Zapata
v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)
(listing cases). Indeed, “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.” 	Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F.
Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2025) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)).
In Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), the government violated
a noncitizen parolee’s Fifth Amendment due process rights when the government revoked
his parole by sending a mass electronic notification one morning and arresting him later
that day at his immigration hearing. 	Id. at 1155, 1167. The Noori court thus held that he
Case 3:26-cv-01480-CAB-AHG Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01480-CAB-AHG
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
had a “protectable expectation of his due process rights in his removal proceedings . . . and
was entitled to both notification of revocation and the reasoning for revocation, if not also
an opportunity to be heard and contest the determination.” Id. at 1165.
Here, Petitioner received even less due process than the Noori petitioner. Petitioner
received no notification or individualized reason as to why ICE re-detained him on
February 	21, 	2026. 	Nor 	have 	Respondents 	explained, 	even 	after 	the 	fact, 	what
circumstances have changed to warrant Petitioner’s re-detention.
III. 	CONCLUSION
In light of Petitioner’s unrefuted facts and legal claims, and Respondents’ non
sequitur response, the Court GRANTS the writ of habeas corpus. 	The Court ORDERS
Respondents to immediately release George Maisuradze from custody under the same
conditions which existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s detention on February 21, 2026.
In light of the foregoing, the TRO is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01480-CAB-AHG Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3