Gosselin Cruz v. LaRose et al

1
3:26-cv-00407-RBM-BJW
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
OSCAR GOSSELIN CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior
Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et
al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00407-RBM-BJW
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Oscar Gosselin Cruz’s (“Petitioner”) Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner
claims he is being detained in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Id. ¶¶ 39–46.) For the reasons set forth
below, the Petition is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a national of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in
2021. 	(Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) 	Petitioner resided in the United States continuously since that time.
(Id.) 	On November 17, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) and transferred to the Otay Mesa Detention Center. 	(Id. ¶ 28.)
Case 3:26-cv-00407-RBM-BJW Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00407-RBM-BJW
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
Petitioner is currently detained pending his removal proceedings and has not received an
individualized custody hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 36)
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).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Respondents concede that Petitioner, as a member of the Bond Eligible Class
certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
25, 2025), is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and therefore entitled to a bond hearing.
(Doc. 4 at 2.) 	Petitioner “requests that the Court grant the Petition and issue an order
directing that a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), without unnecessary
delay.” 	(Doc. 5 at 2.) 	As the Parties agree that Petitioner is detained under § 1226, the
Court GRANTS the Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly,
the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. 	Respondents
shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that
Case 3:26-cv-00407-RBM-BJW Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00407-RBM-BJW
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
Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight. 1
2. If the bond hearing is not conducted within fourteen (14) days of the entry of
this 	Order, 	Respondents 	shall 	release 	Petitioner 	from 	custody 	until 	it 	is
determined that his detention is warranted under § 1226(a).
3. On or before February 23, 2026, the Parties SHALL FILE a status report
indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 6, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (“Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which
Respondents must justify her continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”)
(citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds
by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial liberty
interest at stake” warranted placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and
convincing evidence that [a noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to
justify denial of bond”)).
Case 3:26-cv-00407-RBM-BJW Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3