Manzanares-Zeledon v. Divver et al
| Joseph Alexander Manzanares-Zeledon |
| Patrick Divver, Kristi Noem, Department of Homeland Security, Pamela Bondi, Executive Office for Immigration Review and Christopher J. Larose |
| 3:2026cv01310 |
| March 2, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Jinsook Ohta |
| Valerie E Torres |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainees |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 STATUS REPORT by Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Patrick Divver, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Christopher J. Larose, Kristi Noem. (Norton, Hunter)(stn). |
| Filing 8 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Court GRANTS the habeas petition. The case is hereby closed.(stn) |
Filing 7
ORDER Granting Habeas Petition [Dkt. 1]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/23/2026. (mk)
|
|
Filing 6
Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Joseph Alexander Manzanares-Zeledon, a citizen of Nicaragua, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on November 10, 2022. Dkt. 4-1 at 4. The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") subsequently initiated removal proceedings and released him on conditional parole. Id.; Dkt. 1 P. 20. Over two years after his release, on May 31, 2025, a Border Patrol agent arrested Petitioner and transferred him to immigration custody despite his pending removal proceedings. Id.; Dkt. 1-2 at 4, 5. As a result, Petitioner has been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center for over nine months.2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that (i) 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of 1226, not 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. See Dkt. 4-1 at 4. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his release without an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the public. Mathews v. Elridge, 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976) (due process analysis considers (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the [government] action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail."). Petitioner acquired a protectable liberty interest when the government previously granted his release on conditional parole. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (grant of parole carries an "implicit promise" that liberty will be revoked only for violation of release conditions). Although Petitioner was arrested for fleeing a motor vehicle accident shortly before this immigration detention, the government has offered no evidence that it detained Petitioner after considering that fact and making an individualized determination of his danger to the public or flight risk. See 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(c)(8). Instead, Respondents afforded Petitioner no process before wrongfully asserting their detention authority under 1225(b)(2). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his liberty interest, and the government has offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would outweigh this substantial liberty interest. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention since May 31, 2025 and grants his habeas petition requesting immediate release.4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondent from redetaining Petitioner without first providing a bond hearing before an immigration judge to justify a deprivation of his liberty interest. See, e.g., Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025); Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2025); O.G. v. Albarran, No. 1:26-CV-00010-TLN-DMC, 2026 WL 19105, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2026). While 1226 allows the government to hold a noncitizen in custody while it decides whether to initially grant release, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who already enjoy a liberty interest. In order to prevent an erroneous deprivation of that existing liberty interest and satisfy due process requirements, this hearing must take place prior to any detention. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779-80 (2008) (while habeas relief commonly includes release from physical imprisonment, "depending on the circumstances, more [relief] may be required"); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner's release--revocable at the government's discretion--did not provide complete relief where petitioner sought a legal ruling that he could only be redetained upon a bond hearing); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005) (despite release, petitioner's habeas claim challenging the statutory authority for his detention "continue[d] to present a live case or controversy" because the court could provide relief to prevent redetention on the same allegedly unlawful basis).The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/23/2026. (mk)
|
| Filing 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joseph Alexander Manzanares-Zeledon (Torres, Jose) (rxc). |
| Filing 4 RESPONSE re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Patrick Divver, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Christopher J. Larose, Kristi Noem. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-2)(Norton, Hunter) (rxc). |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Hunter V. Norton on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Patrick Divver, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Christopher J. Larose, Kristi Noem (Norton, Hunter)Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Pamela Bondi(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Department of Homeland Security(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Patrick Divver(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Executive Office for Immigration Review(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Christopher J. Larose(pty:res), Attorney Hunter V. Norton added to party Kristi Noem(pty:res) (rxc). |
|
Filing 2
Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to serve Respondents with the habeas petition [Dkt. 1] by 5:00 PM on March 4, 2026, and file proof of service. Petitioner must also serve the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California by a method prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(A) by that date and file proof of service.The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 5:00 PM on Monday, March 16, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file, as exhibits to their response, the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary for adjudication of this habeas petition, including all Department of Homeland Security records, immigration court documents, arrest or custody records, and any other materials pertaining to Petitioner's detention, processing, or removal proceedings. Unless Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to the complete relief requested in the habeas petition, Respondents must comply with this order by filing the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records.The Court SETS a hearing with oral argument for Thursday, March 26, 2026 at 9:30 AM. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing. The hearing will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. The parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM on the day before the hearing to determine whether such an order has issued and the hearing has been vacated.The Court ORDERS that Petitioner shall not be transferred out of this District unless Respondents provide advance notice of the intended move. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket in this proceeding and shall state the reason why Respondents believe that such a movement is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been docketed, Petitioner SHALL NOT be moved out of this District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of that docketing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/2/2026. (mk)
|
| Filing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Patrick Divver, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Christopher J. Larose, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20848361.), filed by Joseph Alexander Manzanares-Zeledon. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplement)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1310-JO-VET. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres are assigned to the case. (Torres, Jose)(anh) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
