Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Leandro David Alvarez-Almaguer, detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center, first sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration detention. The Court previously denied that original petition, finding that his detention was still within the 90-day mandatory removal period prescribed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). Respondents — Christopher J. LaRose, in his official capacity as Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, and others — then timely filed a status report on August 14, 2026, informing the Court that Petitioner had not been removed from the United States.
Petitioner responded by filing an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Court set a briefing schedule on it. In their response, Respondents stated that they were unable to ascertain sufficient facts at that time to establish that there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On that basis, Respondents conceded that Petitioner is entitled to be released from custody subject to conditions of supervision.
The order at issue is Document 13 in Case No. 3:26-cv-02950-RBM-SBC, filed October 13, 2026, and signed by United States District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on October 14, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
In light of Respondents' non-opposition, the Court granted the Amended Petition. The operative directive orders Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to appropriate conditions of supervision to be determined by immigration authorities and in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory procedures. The Court anchored that relief in Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700, and in Vlasov v. Bondi, Case No. 25-cv-1342-AJB-MSB, 2025 WL 2258582, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2025).
The ruling is an order, not a recommendation: the petition is granted outright and release is mandated immediately, with only the precise conditions of supervision left to immigration authorities under existing law. The Court's reasoning tracks the parties' agreement — because Respondents could not show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and conceded entitlement to supervised release, continued detention could not be sustained and the amended petition had to be granted.
The scope of the holding is limited to Petitioner's own detention. It does not adjudicate any broader challenge to removal procedures, does not set conditions itself, and does not disturb the earlier denial of the original petition, which rested on the then-operative 90-day removal period.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 may obtain release once the government can no longer show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the core concern of Zadvydas v. Davis.
- When the government expressly concedes that a detainee is entitled to release subject to supervision, a district court may grant the amended habeas petition without opposition and order immediate release.
- The conditions of supervision are not set by the court; they are left to immigration authorities acting under applicable statutes and regulations.
- An earlier denial of habeas relief based on the 90-day mandatory removal period does not bar a later amended petition once the government reports the petitioner has not been removed.
- The order is a final, operative directive to release — not a report, recommendation, or show-cause order — signed by Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how quickly habeas posture can shift once the mandatory removal period runs and the government cannot meet its Zadvydas burden: here, the government's own concession converted a previously denied petition into an immediate release order. It also confirms that district courts in the Southern District of California will enforce the Zadvydas framework by ordering release subject to supervision rather than leaving detainees in custody when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Procedurally, the case shows the amended-petition mechanism working as a corrective: the original petition failed only because detention was still within the 90-day window, and once Respondents reported non-removal and conceded the Zadvydas point, the Court granted relief without further briefing on the merits.