Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01099-RBM-VET
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
JOSE ORLANDO ANDASOL
GALDAMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF IMPERIAL DETENTION
FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01099-RBM-VET
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
On February 20, 2026, Petitioner Jose Orlando Andasol Galdamez (“Petitioner”)
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.)
Petitioner claims he “is being unlawfully detained under the wrong statutory authority” and
that he is entitled to a bond hearing based on his membership in the Bond Eligible Class in
Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL
3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). (Id. at 4–6.)
Respondents filed a Response to the Petition on February 26, 2026. 	(Doc. 4.)
Petitioner did not file an optional reply. 	For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is
GRANTED.
Case 3:26-cv-01099-RBM-VET Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01099-RBM-VET
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, a national of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection on
or around August 15, 2006. (Doc. 1-3 at 3.) On December 9, 2025, Petitioner was arrested
by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 	(Doc.1 at 4.) 	That same day,
Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging him as a noncitizen “present
in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.” (Doc. 1-3 at 3.) Since then,
Petitioner has been detained in ICE custody at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility.
(Doc.1 at 4.) Petitioner alleges that he “has no criminal record, has cooperated with DHS,
and is not a flight risk, [and] had current work authorization” at the time of his arrest. (Id.)
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
Petitioner claims he “is being unlawfully detained under the wrong statutory
authority,” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and seeks a “custody redetermination bond hearing to
be considered for bond eligibility.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Respondents concede that Petitioner is
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 is
therefore entitled to a bond hearing. (Doc. 4 at 2.) The Court notes that the Ninth Circuit
stayed and restricted application of that class to only those located in the Central District
of California. Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044, ECF No. 5 at 1 (9th
Case 3:26-cv-01099-RBM-VET Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01099-RBM-VET
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
Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Nonetheless, this Court has agreed with the reasoning in Bautista and
previously found that similarly situated petitioners are not subject to mandatory detention
under § 1225. 	See Rodriguez v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02940-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL
3456475, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025); Silvestre-Mendoza v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-
03206-RBM-DDL, 2025 WL 3512410, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025); Hernandez Flores
v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03023-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), ECF No. 8 at
6–8. For the same reasons stated in those cases, and as the Parties agree that Petitioner is
detained under § 1226(a), 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
Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
2. Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that his detention
is governed by the mandatory detention provision under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
3. 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).
4. Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within five (5) days
of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing, including apprising
the Court of the results of the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 23, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01099-RBM-VET Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3