govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-04012-0

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 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
JUAN CARLOS MUNOZ GALLO (A No. 
241-669-921), 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
WARDEN OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY 
ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 
 
Respondents. 
 

ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR 
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING 
THE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 
RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT; AND 
ORDERING PETITIONER’S IMMEDIATE 
RELEASE 
 
(Docs. 1, 3) 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Before the Court is Juan Carlos Munoz Gallo’s request for a temporary restraining order 
(Doc. 3), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention. (Doc. 1.) The government filed a response to 
the TRO and the underlying petition, asserting only that the petitioner is subject to mandatory 
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a legal position that this Court has rejected repeatedly. 
(Doc. 9 at 1–2.) Thus, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 
 
1 When the Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for TRO, it ordered the parties to state their 
position as to whether the motion for TRO should be converted to a preliminary injunction without 
further briefing, whether the parties sought a hearing, and whether the parties sought additional briefing 
on the habeas petition. (Doc. 8.) Neither party requests a hearing or additional briefing, and Respondents 
indicate that do not oppose the Court ruling on the habeas petition without further briefing. (Doc. 9 at 1.) 
Considering this and given that Respondents had notice and opportunity to respond, the Court decides 

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 
 
 
 
2 
 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has the authority to determine a petition for writ of 
habeas corpus in which the petitioner asserts he is being held in custody “in violation of the 
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack 
by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the 
writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 
Petitioner seeks his immediate release from custody, which he contends violates the Fifth 
Amendment Due Process Clause under the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 at 16–18.) Thus, 
he properly invokes the Court’s habeas jurisdiction. 
The INA limits judicial review in many instances. Though 8 U.S.C § 1252(g) precludes 
this Court from exercising jurisdiction over the executive’s decision to “commence proceedings, 
adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien,” there is no removal order at issue 
here and the central issue is Petitioner’s continued detention. Thus, this Court has the authority 
to review Petitioner’s habeas petition. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018) 
(holding that § 1252(g) precludes judicial review only as to the three areas specifically outlined 
in the subsection); Reno v. American–Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 
(1999). 
III. BACKGROUND 
Petitioner is from Colombia and entered the United States on or around May 28, 2022, 
and was apprehended by Customs and Border Protection. (Doc. 1 at 5.) Shortly thereafter, DHS 
exercised its discretion to release Petitioner through humanitarian parole. (Id. at 6.) Petitioner 
has no criminal history and is not subject to a final order of removal. (Id.; see also Doc. 9 at 1-2.) 
Petitioner also alleges that he has fully complied with every condition imposed by DHS, 
including appearing for all ICE and ATD check-ins. (Doc. 1 at 5.) On April 24, 2026, Petitioner 
was detained by ICE and subsequently transferred to the Central Valley Annex Detention 
Facility in McFarland, California, where he remains. (Id.) 
IV. DISCUSSION 
 
this case on the underlying habeas petition. 

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 
 
 
 
3 
 
The government filed an opposition to the petition and motion for temporary restraining 
order, arguing that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” as an “applicant for admission” under 
expedited removal procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. 9 at 1–2.) Respondents 
offer little to rebut Petitioner’s due process claim and make no effort to distinguish this current 
case from the numerous cases issued by the undersigned, finding this legal position to be 
incorrect and the detention unlawful. J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01309-JLT-SKO (HC) 
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01228-JLT-SAB (HC), 2025 
WL 32879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT (HC), 
2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT 
SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 
JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-
JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-
00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026). Therefore, the Court finds 
that Petitioner’s re-detention under without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due Process 
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 
1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED for the reasons 
stated in the orders cited above. Petitioner SHALL be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY. 
2. The motion for temporary restraining order, (Doc. 3), is DENIED as MOOT. 
3. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner 
unless the government provides notice to Petitioner a minimum of seven days in advance and 
holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and applicable 
regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered, and where the 
government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or 
danger to the community, such that physical custody is legally justified
2; 
 
2 If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without notice in advance, a post-deprivation hearing 
consistent with the requirements set forth here SHALL be provided within seven days of the arrest. 
Alternatively, if Petitioner becomes subject to a final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of 
such order, Respondents may detain Petitioner for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal. In 
this event, Respondent’s SHALL provide a bond hearing in the timeframe required by law. 

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 
 
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the Central Valley Annex Detention 
Facility in McFarland, California, with a copy of this Order. 
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2026 JENNIFER L. THURSTON 
U.S. District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight