Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carlos Lizandro Cardona-Carrillo, a Guatemalan national, asserts that he entered the United States without inspection in 2006 and lived here freely until August 14, 2026, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him. He was then served with a Notice to Appear and is in removal proceedings. He petitioned the Southern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Imperial Regional Detention Facility and other respondents. The order recites these facts as the petitioner's account and makes no findings on them.
The petition alleges that his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which entitles him to a bond hearing, and that the detention violates his due process rights. Respondents conceded that he is detained under § 1226(a) but argued the petition is moot because he is able to request a bond hearing. They also asserted that a Form I-286 had been submitted for him. A footnote rejects that assertion as unsupported: a Department of Homeland Security official evidently decided to detain him, but that decision is not reflected on the I-286, and the form does not show that he requested review of the custody determination.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Dana M. Sabraw agreed with Respondents that the case is moot. The court reasoned that there was no evidence that Petitioner had requested a bond hearing and been denied. It cited Calva v. LaRose, 2026 WL 2620978 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2026), which denied a petition as moot because the petitioner had not yet requested a subsequent bond hearing. The order recites Respondents' concession that § 1226(a) applies and does not independently analyze which detention statute governs. It does not discuss exhaustion doctrine, and it does not reach the due process claim.
The court denied the petition without prejudice and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case. The order does not hold that the detention is lawful and does not say what would happen if a bond hearing were requested and denied. Its reasoning turns on the absence of such a request and denial, but it states no conditions on any later filing.
Key Takeaways
- On this record, the court treated a § 1226(a) habeas petition as moot because Respondents conceded § 1226(a) governs and nothing showed the petitioner had requested a bond hearing and been denied.
- The disposition is a denial without prejudice, with judgment entered and the case closed. It is not a ruling on the merits of the detention or due process claims.
- The court declined to credit Respondents' assertion that an I-286 had been submitted for Petitioner, because the form did not reflect the DHS detention decision or a request for custody review.
- The order cites Calva v. LaRose, 2026 WL 2620978, as supporting authority from the same district.
- The order is unreported, brief and a single district judge's ruling, so it carries no binding precedential weight.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court may handle a detainee's habeas petition when the government concedes that § 1226(a) applies. The availability of a bond hearing can lead the court to deny the petition as moot until the detainee actually asks for one and is refused. That posture matters because the petition sought a bond hearing, the very process Respondents said remained available. The order suggests that counsel should be able to show a request for a bond hearing and its outcome before seeking relief from the district court.
The ruling is limited. It is an unpublished two-page district court order, it does not analyze the due process claim, and it does not decide what would follow if a bond hearing were requested and denied or delayed. The footnote's scrutiny of the I-286 is a reminder that the government's assertions about custody review must be backed by the documents it submits. The court did not, however, rest its mootness ruling on that point.