govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-03378-1

1 
26-cv-3378 JES MSB 
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 
 
SATURNINO SOSOF MENDOZA, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
CHRISTOPHER J. LaROSE, Senior 
Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center; 
TODD BLANCHE, Acting United States 
Attorney General; MARKWAYNE 
MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security; PATRICK DIVVER, 
ICE San Diego Field Office Director, in 
their official capacities, 
Respondents. 
 Case No.: 26-cv-3378 JES MSB 
 
ORDER GRANTING PETITION 
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 
 
[ECF No. 1] 
Before the Court is Petitioner Saturnino Sosof Mendoza’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”). Pursuant to the Court's Order to 
Show Cause, Respondents (the “Government") filed the Response, which expressed its 
non-opposition to the Court ordering Petitioner’s bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 
ECF No. 2; ECF No. 4 at 2. Petitioner then filed the Traverse. ECF No. 6. The Court has 
taken the matter under submission and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 
the Petition. 
Case 3:26-cv-03378-JES-MSB     Document 7     Filed 06/12/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page
1 of 5
 
2 
26-cv-3378 JES MSB 
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 unlawfully entered the United States in 
approximately December 2021. Pet. ¶¶ 25–26. He was not apprehended at the time of entry 
and has no criminal history. Id. ¶ 26. Since then, Petitioner has been regularly employed in 
landscaping. Id. ¶ 25. 
On May 1, 2026, immigration  agents stopped a vehicle , in which Petitioner was a 
passenger and arrested him , without explanation. Id.  ¶ 27. Petitioner was transferred 
between detention facilities in Florida before being brought to the Otay Mesa Detention 
Center in San Diego, California, where he remains in custody. Id.  The Government , 
thereafter, initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner , which are still pending Id. ¶ 
28.  
Petitioner has not sought a bond redetermination from the Immigration Court 
because the immigration judges at Otay Mesa have concluded they lack jurisdiction to set 
bond. This stance is based on the Board of Immigration Appeal’s precedential decision in 
Matter of Yajure Hurtado , rendering any administrative application futile. 29 I&N Dec. 
216 (BIA 2025). Pet. ¶ 29.  
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). A court may grant a writ of 
habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he is in custody in violation of the 
Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Challenges to immigration- related 
detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 
533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 
// 
// 
Case 3:26-cv-03378-JES-MSB     Document 7     Filed 06/12/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page
2 of 5
 
3 
26-cv-3378 JES MSB 
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 
The Court finds that the Petition’s issues— specifically, the Court’s jurisdiction and 
which statute governs Petitioner’s detention—are analogous to those raised in the Court’s 
decision in Martinez Lopez v. Noem, et al., No. 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, 
at *2–7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow the reasoning stated 
therein and incorporates it by reference. Id. 
A.  Jurisdiction 
The Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252's jurisdiction-stripping provisions do not bar it 
from considering this habeas petition. Id . Moreover, the prudential administrative 
exhaustion requirement for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claims is excused. Id . Imposing that 
requirement would be futile given the BIA's precedential decision in Matter of Yajure 
Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which held that noncitizens who entered without 
inspection are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) regardless of where 
or when they were apprehended. See id . at *4–5. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has 
jurisdiction to hear the Petition. 
B. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) Governs Petitioner's Detention 
Although the Ninth Circuit stayed application of the Maldonado Bautista class 
certification to prospective members outside the Central District of California, this Court’s 
rulings, when analyzing habeas cases with similar circumstances, have consistently been 
aligned with Maldonado Bautista 's holding. See Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026); see, e.g., Velazquez-Beltran v. Noem, 
No. 3:26-CV-959-JES-MSB, 2026 WL 524056, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026) (holding 
that noncitizens that entered the country without inspection and were not immediately 
apprehended near the border are subject to immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), 
not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b); Murillo-Ortiz v. LaRose, No. 3:26-CV-1469-JES-BJW, 2026 WL 
800556, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026) (holding same); Jasbir v. Warden, Imperial Reg'l 
Adult Det. Facility, No. 26-CV-579-JES-BJW, 2026 WL 353354, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 
2026) (holding same). 
Case 3:26-cv-03378-JES-MSB     Document 7     Filed 06/12/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page
3 of 5
 
4 
26-cv-3378 JES MSB 
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 was not apprehended at or near the border. Pet. ¶ 1. He has resided in the 
United States and has been in Respondents’ custody since March 12, 2026, well after his 
entry. Id. ¶¶ 1, 9. These facts make clear that Petitioner "was not actively entering, 
attempting to enter or had recently entered, the country when apprehended." Martinez 
Lopez, 2025 WL 3030457, at *6. Accordingly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), governs Petitioner's detention. 
C. Petitioner Is Entitled to a Bond Hearing 
Noncitizens that are arrested and detained, pending a removal decision, may apply 
for release on bond or conditional parole. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a)(2)(A) –(B). If the 
Government denies that request, the noncitizen may seek a bond hearing before an 
Immigration Judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 
527 (2021).  
As the Court has found that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to Petitioner's detention, and 
given the absence of any opposition from Respondents, Petitioner is entitled to , and shall 
receive, an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Aparicio Juan v. 
LaRose, No. 3:26-cv -2099-JES-BJW (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2026) (granting petition and 
ordering bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on materially identical facts); see ECF No. 
4. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 
(1) The Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. § 2241; 
(2) The Court ORDERS the Government to provide the noncitizen with an 
individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen 
(14) days of this Order, unless the noncitizen requests a continuance; 
(3) 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; and 
Case 3:26-cv-03378-JES-MSB     Document 7     Filed 06/12/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page
4 of 5
 
5 
26-cv-3378 JES MSB 
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 
(4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 12, 2026 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-03378-JES-MSB     Document 7     Filed 06/12/26     PageID.<pageID>     Page
5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight