govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-03442-0

1 
26-cv-3442-BJC-JLB 
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 
 
SERHAT ERTUGRUL, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al, 
Respondents. 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 
 
 
On June 8, 2026, Petitioner Serhat Ertugrul filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Turkey 
Id. ¶ 26. Petitioner entered the United States on April 15, 2023, and was placed in removal 
proceedings which remain pending. Id. ¶ 48. Petitioner was released from custody on 
conditional parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 4. Petitioner was re-detained 
by Respondents on May 24, 2026. No pre-deprivation hearing was held prior to his re -
detention, and he has not been given a bond hearing. Petitioner has been detained at the 
Otay Mesa Detention Center since his arrest. Petitioner requests that the Court assume 
jurisdiction over the matter, grant the petition, and order Petition er’s immediate release 
from custody or, in the alternative, order an adequate bond hearing. 
// 
Case 3:26-cv-03442-BJC-JLB Document 5 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3
 
2 
26-cv-3442-BJC-JLB 
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. LEGAL STANDARD 
Courts may grant habeas corpus relief to those “in custody in violation of the 
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241; see also Hamdi v. 
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2644, 159 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2004) (“[T]he writ 
of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States.”). 
Courts are authorized to grant writs pursuant to § 2241 to noncitizens in custody in 
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Magana-Pizano v. 
I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999). 
II. DISCUSSION 
Petitioner contends his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(“INA”) and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Respondents do not address 
Petitioner’s due process arguments. Instead, Respondents state that Petitioner is subject to 
mandatory detention under section 1225(b)(2) but acknowledge that this Court has 
repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion under the same or similar facts. ECF No. 4. 
Therefore, Respondent “does not oppose the petition and defers to the Court on the 
appropriate relief.” ECF No. 4 at 2. 
Petitioner was entitled to due process, including written notice, the reasons for the 
termination, and an opportunity to contest the determination, prior to termination of his 
parole. Noori v. LaRose , No. 25-CV-1824-GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11 (S.D. 
Cal. Oct. 1, 2025). Petitioner contends, and Respondents do not dispute, that Petitioner 
was provided no individualized determination, and no opportunity to be heard before he 
was detained. The Court finds Petitioner’s revocation of his release and detention violates 
his due process rights. 
// 
// 
// 
// 
// 
Case 3:26-cv-03442-BJC-JLB Document 5 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3
 
3 
26-cv-3442-BJC-JLB 
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. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner under the previously determined 
conditions. Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without complying with 
8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 17, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-03442-BJC-JLB Document 5 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight