govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-02284-1

1 
26-cv-2284-AGS-DEB 
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 
Liliana De Los Angeles CORTES 
OCHOA, 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 
et al., 
Respondents. 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION (ECF 12) 
 
 Petitioner Liliana Cortes Ochoa asks this Court to reconsider its earlier denial of her 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy,” Kona 
Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), that “should be used 
sparingly,” Bennett v. United States, No. 23-cv-01140-BAS-BLM, 2025 WL 745870, at *2 
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2025) . “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is 
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 
was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. ” See 
School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or . v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 
1993). The moving party bears a “heavy burden” to justify “reconsideration of a court’s 
prior order.” Inventist, Inc. v. Ninebot Inc. , 664 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1215 (W.D. Wash. 
2023). 
 Cortes Ochoa’s sole argument is that, due to delays outside of her control, the Court 
did not receive her traverse before issuing judgment. She contends that “[d] enying 
reconsideration under these circumstances would result in manifest injustice.” (ECF 12, 
at 2.) Yet Cortes Ochoa has not met the high burden of establishing any clear error or 
manifest injustice. Clear error occurs when, “on the entire record, the Court is left with the 
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. 
Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). Nothing in the traverse suggests that 
Case 3:26-cv-02284-AGS-DEB Document 16 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 2
 
2 
26-cv-2284-AGS-DEB 
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 
this Court’s prior ruling was unjust or wrong. In her habeas petition, Cortes Ochoa bore 
the burden of establishing that she was “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 
. . . of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3). But her detention is not only 
lawful, but required. As an “alien” stopped at the border upon “arriving in the 
United States,” the relevant statute mandates that she “shall be detained” during her 
removal or asylum proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Thus, until the consideration of 
her asylum petition is complete, including the pending appeal, she must be kept in custody. 
See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (“Read most naturally, §§ 1225(b)(1) 
and (b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings 
have concluded. . . . Until that point, however, nothing in the statutory text imposes any 
limit on the length of detention. And neither § 1225(b)(1) nor § 1225(b)(2) says anything 
whatsoever about bond hearings.”). 
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 
Dated: June 18, 2026 
 
___________________________ 
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-02284-AGS-DEB Document 16 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight