A.C. v. LaRose et al

1
3:26-cv-00208-RBM-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
A.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00208-RBM-AHG
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1];
(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER
PSEUDONYM [Doc. 3]; and
(3) DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER [Doc. 2]
Pending before the Court are Petitioner A.C.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1); Motion for Leave to
Proceed Under Pseudonym (“Pseudonym Motion”) (Doc. 3); and Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. 2). 	For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS the Petition and Pseudonym Motion and DENIES AS MOOT the TRO Motion.
Case 3:26-cv-00208-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
3:26-cv-00208-RBM-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
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection
and was not apprehended upon entry. (Doc. 1 ¶ 20.)1 On October 15, 2025, Petitioner was
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) during a workplace raid. (Id.
¶ 21.) On December 31, 2025, Petitioner appeared before an immigration judge for a bond
hearing. (Id. ¶ 23.) The immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for bond because
she found that she lacked jurisdiction under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216
(BIA 2025). (Doc. 1-2 at 18.) The immigration judge also issued alternative findings for
if she did have jurisdiction. (Id.) Specifically, the immigration judge alternatively granted
a $2,000 bond and listed several other conditions for release. (Id.)
On January 14, 2026, Petitioner filed the Petition (Doc. 1), TRO Motion (Doc. 2),
and Pseudonym Motion (Doc. 3). The next day, the Court set a briefing schedule. (Doc. 4.)
On January 23, 2026, Respondents filed their Response to Petition (“Response”) (Doc. 7)
and their Notice of Non-Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a
Pseudonym (Doc. 6).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
1 The Court cites the paragraph numbers of the Petition and the CM/ECF electronic
pagination for all other filings.
Case 3:26-cv-00208-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
3:26-cv-00208-RBM-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
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Pseudonym Motion
Although petitioners must typically identify themselves in pleadings under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), they may “use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when
nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary . . . to protect a person from harassment,
injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.,
214 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). 	The Court must
“balance the need for anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are
public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068.
Petitioner argues that he should be allowed to proceed pseudonymously because:
(1) he “may be filing additional applications for relief including an asylum application”
and disclosure of information in these proceedings “could lead to stigma and further harm;”
(2) “public disclosure of asylum-related information may subject [Petitioner] to retaliatory
measures by government authorities or non-state actors if [he] is repatriated;” and (3) there
is no prejudice to Respondents because Petitioner’s counsel has already disclosed
Petitioner’s full name and “alien registration number” to Respondents’ counsel. 	(Doc. 3
at 2–4.) Respondents do not oppose the Pseudonym Motion. (See Doc. 6.)
The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated a sufficient need for anonymity and
that the use of a pseudonym here will not prejudice Respondents or diminish the public’s
understanding of the issues or resolution of Petitioner’s claim. Therefore, the Pseudonym
Motion (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
B. 	Petition
Petitioner argues that his ongoing detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 	(Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1–5, 44–50.) 	Respondents concede that
Petitioner, as a class member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz,2
2 See Bautista v. Santacruz, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25,
2025).
Case 3:26-cv-00208-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
3:26-cv-00208-RBM-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
is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing. (Doc. 7 at 1.) Because
the Parties agree that Petitioner is detained under § 1226, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
However, the Court finds that immediate release, rather than requiring another bond
hearing, is the appropriate remedy. 	At the December 31, 2025 hearing, the immigration
judge determined that, if she had jurisdiction, she would have ordered Petitioner released
on a $2,000 bond along with several other conditions. 	(Doc. 1-2 at 18.) 	As the Court
previously reasoned in nearly identical circumstances:
Petitioner has been in immigration custody since [the bond hearing], which
means that circumstances have not changed such that the immigration judge's
finding should be called into question. 	Particularly given Respondents'
“weighty” interest in the “efficient administration of the immigration laws,”
Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982), it does not make sense to require
Respondents to set a new bond hearing before a potentially new immigration
judge just to duplicate the same efforts taken at the [December 31], 2025
hearing. Nor would this remedy prejudice Respondents. First, they have not
contested the immigration judge’s findings or argued that Petitioner poses a
flight risk or danger to the community. Second, should Respondents wish to
make those arguments, they may do so by appealing the immigration judge’s
decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 	See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19(f),
1003.38(a); Bui v. Holder, No. 1:15-cv-0-636-JLT, 2015 WL 3903764, at *3
(E.D. Cal. June 25, 2015) (noting that these “regulation[s] demonstrate[ ] a
clearly-established 	administrative 	scheme 	designed 	to 	address 	custodial
determinations, a practice that includes an appeals process”).
Ruiz v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03536-RBM-BJW, 2025 WL 3719888, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Dec. 23, 2025). 	The Court incorporates its reasoning in Ruiz here and reaches the same
conclusion.
IV. 	CONCLUSION3
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) and Pseudonym Motion (Doc. 3) are
GRANTED. Accordingly:
3 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining
grounds for relief.
Case 3:26-cv-00208-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
3:26-cv-00208-RBM-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
1. Respondents are 	ORDERED 	to immediately release Petitioner from custody,
subject to a $2,000 bond and the conditions of release set forth in the immigration
judge’s alternative findings. (See Doc. 1-2 at 18.)
2. The TRO Motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 29, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00208-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5