Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kelvin Leonel Martinez-Ramos petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while apparently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The Central District of California had set an in-person hearing for October 19, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. to hear argument on the pending petition. On October 12, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim issued an in-chambers order to show cause identifying potential problems with each of the petition’s four claims.
The order did not finally deny or dismiss any claim. Instead, it directed Martinez-Ramos to be prepared at the hearing to explain why Claims One and Two should not be denied without prejudice as unripe; why Claim Three should not be denied on the merits insofar as it seeks release, or treated as moot after a custody review; and why Claim Four should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of habeas jurisdiction. The court also supplied an alternative to appearing through counsel: a timely stipulation or request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
For Claims One and Two, the court observed that Martinez-Ramos appeared to remain within the six-month detention period that Zadvydas v. Davis treats as presumptively reasonable. It stated that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit authority requires a bond hearing for a detainee in that posture, citing Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez. The court nevertheless noted that he appeared eligible for an automatic Rodriguez hearing due on or about November 9, 2026, under the district’s governing Rodriguez framework.
For Claim Three, the court identified two possible grounds for denial. To the extent the claim seeks release as habeas relief, the court pointed to Pogosyan v. Bondi, where an informal interview—not release—was ordered as relief narrowly tailored to the specific harms. Alternatively, the claim could become moot once respondents conduct the headquarters custody review with notice to Martinez-Ramos and counsel, as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(d)(3) and (k)(2)(ii).
For Claim Four, the court reasoned that relief directing collection of biometrics or re-adjudication of USCIS filings would not end or shorten custody. Relying on Pinson v. Carvajal, it concluded that such relief must be sought outside habeas corpus, if at all. The order therefore proposed dismissal without prejudice for lack of habeas jurisdiction, rather than a merits rejection. Martinez-Ramos could avoid the October 19 appearance by filing a Rule 41(a)(2) stipulation or request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice by 5 p.m. Pacific on October 15; that would automatically vacate the hearing and dissolve the preliminary injunction.
Key Takeaways
- The order raises proposed dispositions for all four claims but does not itself finally deny or dismiss them.
- Claims One and Two appear unripe because detention apparently remains within Zadvydas’s presumptively reasonable six-month period.
- The court separately notes apparent eligibility for an automatic Rodriguez hearing expected on or about November 9, 2026.
- Claim Four concerns biometrics and USCIS re-adjudication, relief the court says would not end or shorten custody and therefore lies outside habeas.
- A timely voluntary-dismissal filing would vacate the October 19 hearing, eliminate both sides’ need to appear, and dissolve the preliminary injunction.
Why It Matters
The order distinguishes several forms of immigration-custody relief that can easily be conflated: release through habeas, a bond hearing, a headquarters custody review, and administrative action on biometrics or USCIS filings. Its proposed outcomes turn on the particular remedy sought and whether that remedy would affect custody, not on a blanket ruling about immigration detention. This claim-by-claim approach reflects the court’s focus on the specific relief requested in each count rather than a categorical rejection of the petition.
It also gives Martinez-Ramos a concrete procedural choice before the hearing. He can defend the claims at the scheduled argument or seek voluntary dismissal without prejudice by the stated deadline, with the order specifying the consequences for the hearing and preliminary injunction. The show-cause posture leaves the identified issues open for that response, and the October 15 deadline provides a clear window for resolving the matter without consuming judicial resources on the scheduled October 19 hearing.