Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1473-JES-DDL
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
FERUZ K. ODILOV,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI; KRISTI NOEM;
DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN; and JEREMY
CASEY,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1473-JES-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Feruz K. Odilov’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Respondents filed a return, and
Petitioner filed a traverse. ECF Nos. 3-4.
Petitioner, a native of Uzbekistan, first entered the United States in November 2022.
ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 21, 23. He was released into the United States at that time, and currently is
in removal proceedings, with a pending asylum claim. Id. ¶ 23. Since his release, he lived
in Sacramento, obtained a work permit, and worked under this permit. Id. ¶ 3. He alleges
that he has never been arrested or convicted of any crimes. Id. ¶ 4. On February 27, 2026,
Petitioner was detained while he was working as truck driver. Id. ¶ 7. Petitioner alleges that
his detention violates Due Process and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Id.
Case 3:26-cv-01473-JES-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-1473-JES-DDL
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
Respondents do not substantively address any of the merits of the claim in their
return. Rather, they only state: “Upon careful review of the Petition, Respondents hereby
submit their Notice of Non-Opposition to a bond hearing for Petitioner in this matter,
subject to supervision during his removal proceedings.” ECF No. 3. Petitioner responded
in a traverse, stating that a bond hearing is not sufficient and he should be released. ECF
No. 4.
In light of Respondents’ non-opposition, the Court will decline to engage in a full
analysis of the claims as well. However, the Court notes that it agrees with Petitioner that
release is the appropriate relief here. Petitioner states, and Respondents do not refute, that
he was previously released on some form of parole by the government when he first entered
in 2022. Many courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that prior release raises a
liberty interest for the petitioner and entitles the petitioner to due process rights under
procedural due process. See, e.g., Rivera v. Warden, Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No. 26-CV-375-
JES-AHG, 2026 WL 310193, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026); Besalti v. LaRose, No. 26-
CV-270-JES-JLB, 2026 WL 242042, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026); Singh v. LaRose,
No. 26-CV-0556-JES-VET, 2026 WL 353355, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026); Ramales
v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-501-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 280216, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026);
Minhas v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-492-JES-BLM, 2026 WL 280220, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3,
2026). Accordingly, the Court adopts its reasoning and finds that due process requires
release of Petitioner here.
The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. Respondents are
ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of
his prior that existed at the time he was re-detained. The Parties are ORDERED to file a
Joint Status Report by March 24, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released.
//
//
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-01473-JES-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-1473-JES-DDL
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
The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01473-JES-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3