Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alexa Yoaly Flores Montoya, a citizen of Mexico, petitioned the Southern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As the order recites, her petition alleges that she entered the United States on January 4, 2024, and was released on parole at that time. She alleges that immigration officials arrested her on October 5, 2026, and that she has been held at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility ever since. She contends that her continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Respondents, including Christopher LaRose, filed a return stating that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute that governs arrest and detention of noncitizens while removal decisions are pending. They did not oppose the petition and deferred to the Court on the appropriate relief. The order is short and recounts the facts as Petitioner's allegations, not as findings after an evidentiary hearing. The matter was decided on the petition and the return alone, without contested merits briefing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court found that Petitioner is entitled to release and granted the petition. It supported that conclusion with citations, not extended analysis. It cited Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), and two later Southern District of California decisions, Tran v. LaRose and Antonio v. LaRose, each described as granting release under similar facts. The order does not say in its own words whether release rests on the due process claim or on the statutory framework, so its reasoning is only as strong as those cited decisions.
The relief has two parts. First, the Court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner immediately, subject to the conditions of her preexisting release. Second, it ordered that before any re-detention she is entitled to notice of the reasons for revoking her 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 she poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
The parties must file a Joint Status Report by October 27, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. Because the Court said the order concludes the litigation, it directed the Clerk to close the file. That follows the grant of the writ and is not a dismissal. The order does not address the merits of any removal proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted the writ and ordered immediate release, but it did so by citing earlier decisions and did not set out its own detailed due process or statutory analysis.
- Respondents conceded that § 1226(a) applies yet did not oppose the petition and left the choice of relief to the Court, so the outcome did not follow a contested ruling.
- Release is on the conditions of her preexisting release, and the order is not a termination of her immigration case.
- Any re-detention requires prior notice of the reasons for revoking release and a hearing before a neutral decision maker, with the Government bearing a clear-and-convincing burden on danger or flight risk.
- The case is closed after a status report due October 27, 2026, confirming release.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported, unopposed district-court order, so it carries persuasive weight at most. Its main value is as an example of how judges in the Southern District of California are treating paroled noncitizens arrested and held under § 1226(a). The Court applied its own earlier rulings and attached procedural protections that bar re-detention without a prior hearing and place a heightened burden on the Government.
Several questions remain open. The order does not say which legal ground drives the result, and it does not decide how a contested case would come out. It also does not decide what showing would justify re-detention, because it only sets the process and the burden. Anyone relying on it should read the cited decisions for the underlying reasoning.