Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ridi Ortiz Lopez, a Honduran national represented by counsel, petitioned the Southern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. According to the petition, which the order recites as allegations rather than findings, he entered the United States in April 1996, has lived here since, built a life with steady work and a family, and has never been arrested, cited, charged, or convicted of an enumerated offense. He alleges that Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him on August 13, 2026, and that he was stopped only because of racial profiling, since he was not committing a crime or traffic violation. The court did not resolve the profiling allegation. The order notes that his removal proceedings are ongoing.
The petition, filed August 28, 2026, alleged that he was detained without notice or an opportunity to be heard, was never given an individualized custody determination, and faced a blanket denial of a bond hearing, all in violation of due process. Respondents filed a return on September 9, 2026. They acknowledged that Ortiz Lopez, as an unadmitted noncitizen present in the interior of the country, is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than § 1225, and that under § 1226(a) a noncitizen may ask an immigration judge for a bond hearing at any time before a final removal order. They said they did not oppose an order directing a bond hearing but asked for fourteen days to hold it. Petitioner filed no traverse.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Ortiz Lopez is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and granted the petition in part. Its reasoning was short and rested largely on Respondents' concessions. They did not contest that he was detained without notice or a hearing and has had no bond hearing during his pending removal proceedings, and they agreed that § 1226(a) governs his detention. The court cited the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock for the point that noncitizens present without admission and arrested in the interior fall under § 1226(a). It also noted that bond may still be denied to those who pose flight risks or dangers to the community.
The order has four operative parts. Respondents must hold a bond hearing within fourteen days, the same window they requested, and may not deny bond at that hearing based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Respondents are enjoined from transferring Ortiz Lopez before the hearing takes place. His request for immediate release is denied without prejudice, and his request for attorneys' fees and costs is denied without prejudice to a properly filed fee application. The clerk was directed to close the matter. The court did not rule on the constitutional due process theory or the profiling allegation, and it did not decide whether he should ultimately be released on bond.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief only in part: a bond hearing within fourteen days, not release from custody.
- Respondents conceded that § 1226(a), not § 1225, governs detention of an unadmitted noncitizen arrested in the interior, and the ruling rests heavily on that concession.
- The order bars Respondents from relying on § 1225 to deny bond and bars transfer of the petitioner until the hearing occurs.
- The denials of release and of fees are without prejudice, so a fee application remains possible, and the bond outcome is left to the immigration judge.
Why It Matters
This is a short district court order in a single-petitioner case, and it is not a published or precedential opinion. Its practical value is as an example of how the Southern District of California is handling interior-arrest detention petitions after Rodriguez Vazquez, where the government agrees that § 1226(a) applies and does not oppose a bond hearing. In that setting, the court set a short deadline and foreclosed reliance on § 1225 at the hearing.
The order should not be read broadly. It does not decide that prolonged detention without a hearing violates due process, and it does not hold that bond must be granted. The court's citation of Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland reflects only that a detainee who receives a bond hearing and is denied bond on a danger finding has not necessarily suffered a due process violation. What remains open is the bond decision itself, any later challenge to it, and whether a fee application will be filed and granted.