Jose Castro Martinez v. Christopher J. LaRose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

Castro Martinez v. LaRose · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · December 16, 2025 · No. 3:25-cv-03449-DMS-MMP

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California held that the petitioner, a long-term resident detained in removal proceedings, was unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court granted the habeas petition and ordered respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days, while denying the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.

Holdings

  1. Sections 1252(b)(9) and 1252(g) did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's § 2241 challenge to the statutory basis for his detention.
  2. Prudential exhaustion was excused because requiring exhaustion would have been futile in light of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
  3. An individual who has been residing in the United States and has not affirmatively applied for admission or a change of status is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) merely because the individual is inadmissible and has not been admitted or paroled.
  4. The appropriate relief was an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than immediate release, because § 1226(a) permits continued detention following a lawful discretionary bond determination.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) or § 1252(g) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Petitioner's § 2241 challenge to his immigration detention.
  2. Whether prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies should be required when exhaustion would be futile in light of Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
  3. Whether Petitioner, an individual residing in the United States who had not affirmatively applied for admission or a change of status, was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or instead the discretionary detention framework of § 1226(a).
  4. What relief was appropriate if detention under § 1225(b)(2) was unlawful.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (10)

  • Tijerina v. Thornburgh, 884 F.2d 861, 866 (5th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)(applied)
  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)(followed)
  • Vasquez Garcia v. Noem, 2025 WL 2549431, at *3-4, *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025)(followed)
  • Medina-Ortiz v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02819-DMS-MMP, ECF No. 7, at 3-4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025)(followed)
  • Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2672 JLS (BLM), 2025 WL 2998361, at *3-5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025)(followed)
  • Vasquez v. Feeley, 2025 WL 2676082, at *10 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025)(followed)
  • Castellanos Lopez v. Warden, 2025 WL 3005346, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)(followed)
  • Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1256, 1263 (W.D. Wash. 2025)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294-95 (2018)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…