Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michelet Compere, a citizen of Haiti, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 in the Southern District of California. According to the petition, as recited in the order, he entered the United States on November 9, 2022, and was then released on parole. He alleges that immigration officials arrested him on October 7, 2026, and that he has been held in immigration detention since then. He contends that his continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. These are Petitioner's allegations; the short order does not make independent factual findings about the parole or the arrest.
Respondents, federal officials including Christopher J. LaRose, filed a return stating that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a). On that basis they told the Court they do not oppose the petition and defer to the Court on the appropriate relief. The order is unreported, was issued by a single district judge, and sets out no extended analysis of the constitutional claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Court found that Petitioner is entitled to release and cited three earlier Southern District of California decisions that granted release on similar facts: Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), Tran v. LaRose, and Antonio v. LaRose. The order does not walk through the due process claim itself or explain how section 1226(a) interacts with the Fifth Amendment; it rests on those decisions and on Respondents' lack of opposition. It granted the petition and ordered Respondents to release Petitioner immediately, subject to the conditions of his preexisting release.
The Court also ordered forward-looking protections. Before any re-detention, Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his release and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether detention is warranted. At that hearing the Government bears the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that he poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight. These are orders directed to the Government, not recommendations.
The parties must file a Joint Status Report by October 23, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. The Court stated that the order concludes the litigation and directed the Clerk to close the file. The order does not address damages, other detainees, or any removal proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A district court granted an unopposed section 2241 petition and ordered the immediate release of a Haitian citizen who had been held in immigration detention since October 7, 2026.
- Respondents' position that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) did not prevent release; they chose not to oppose and deferred to the Court on relief.
- Any re-detention requires prior notice of the reasons for revocation and a hearing before a neutral decision maker, with the Government bearing a clear and convincing evidence burden on danger or flight risk.
- The parties must confirm release by a joint status report due October 23, 2026, and the case is to be closed, so no further merits proceedings remain open in this action.
- The decision is an unreported single-judge order that relies on other district court rulings; it is not binding precedent.
Why It Matters
The order shows how judges in the Southern District of California are resolving habeas petitions from people arrested after earlier release on parole when the Government does not contest relief. It follows a pattern set in earlier decisions of the same court, including one reported in the Federal Supplement, by pairing release with procedural conditions on future re-detention, notably a clear and convincing evidence standard placed on the Government.
Its precedential weight is limited. It is a brief district court order, not a published appellate opinion, and it neither binds other judges nor resolves the underlying legal question, because Respondents declined to contest it. Its reasoning is incorporated by citation rather than stated, so lawyers should read the cited decisions for the analysis. The order also applies only to this Petitioner, and the Government remains free to seek re-detention through the specified process, so what happens next depends on whether it initiates that process.