govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03807-0

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 
YEFRIN ORTIZ SANTOS (A No. 220-
247-181), 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE ICE 
DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 
 
Respondents. 

ORDER WITHDRAWING THE REFERENCE 
OF THIS MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE 
JUDGE; GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT 
OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND DIRECTING 
RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE A 
SUBSTANTIVE BOND HEARING 
(Doc. 1) 
 
Before the Court is Yefrin Ortiz Santos’ petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 
28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention. (Doc. 1.) This matter was initially referred 
to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. In 
the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency, the undersigned hereby withdraws that 
reference, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS the petition. (Doc. 1). 
I. LEGAL STANDARD 
The Constitution guarantees that the 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). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the 
power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or 
laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens 
in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. 

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 
 
R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025). 
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
Petitioner is from Guatemala. He entered the United States on or about August 24, 2021, 
and was not encountered by federal immigration officials. (Doc. 7-1 at 1.) On February 18, 2026, 
Petitioner was encountered at the Miami Dade County Sherriff's Office by ICE after being 
arrested for driving under the influence. (Id.) On February 20, 2026, Petitioner was placed in 
removal proceedings and issued a Notice to Appear, charging him pursuant to § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Doc. 7-2 at 3.) Petitioner is detained at Mesa Verde 
ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield, California. (Id.) 
III. DISCUSSION 
The government filed an opposition to the habeas petition, arguing that Petitioner’s 
detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 
(See generally, Doc. 7.) This Court has previously addressed similar due process arguments 
made by individuals who entered the United States without permission long ago and have 
resided here for many years without interacting with the immigration system and found that such 
individuals are not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). See R.P.V., v. Minga 
Wofford, et al., No. 1:26-CV-01010 JLT EPG (HC), 2026 WL 494748, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 
2026); Velasco v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-01200 JLT SKO (HC), 2026 WL 542242 at *1 (E.D. 
Cal. Feb. 26, 2026); Elder Lopez Lopez, v. Christopher Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-CV-01455-
JLT-EPG, 2026 WL 640887 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026). 
Furthermore, courts nationwide, including this one, have rejected Respondents’ new legal 
position and found the DHS policy unlawful. See e.g., Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 
JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, 1:25-CV-
01228-JLT, 2025 WL 2879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-
01517-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-
CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); J.E.H.G. v. Chestnut, No. 
1:25-CV-01673-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 
1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, 

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 
 
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 without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due 
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court will also require Respondents to comply 
with the procedures articulated in Garcia De Melo v. Stamper, No. 1:26-CV-00152-JAW, 2026 
WL 925672, at *5 (D. Me. Apr. 6, 2026), because there is no evidence that Respondents have yet 
obtained an administrative warrant or provided Petitioner any kind of initial custody 
determination. Thus, 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; 
2. Within 48 hours of this order, Respondents SHALL undertake an initial 
custody determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at which point they may either release 
Petitioner or continue his detention if deemed appropriate. 
3. Thereafter, if Petitioner is not released, and no arrest warrant has been issued, 
Respondents SHALL immediately seek an arrest warrant. If the warrant is not granted, 
Respondents SHALL immediately release Petitioner. If a warrant is granted, within 10 days of 
the initial custody determination, Respondents SHALL provide Petitioner with a bond hearing in 
accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at which the parties will be allowed to present evidence and 
argument about whether Petitioners are a danger to the community and present a flight risk if not 
detained. 
4. At least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, the Petitioner SHALL receive 
notice of the hearing. He SHALL have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, and 
he SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing. If counsel has filed an appearance in the 
immigration proceedings, at least 72 hours before the hearing, counsel SHALL receive notice of 
the scheduled hearing. 
5. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-
detaining Petitioner unless Respondents provide no less than seven days’ notice to Petitioner and 
hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its 

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 
 
implementing regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond is considered.1 
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the Mesa Verde Detention Center with a 
copy of this Order. 
7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner. 
 
1 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. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2026
JENNIFER L. THURSTON 
U.S. District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight