The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SAIKOU YAYA DIALLO, Case No.: 26-cv-2167-RSH-BLM
12 Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
13 v. ENFORCE
14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden,
[ECF Nos. 8, 9]
15 Respondent.
16
17
18 On April 6, 2026, petitioner Saikou Yaya Diallo filed a petition for writ of habeas
19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that his
20 detention without a bond hearing pending removal proceedings had become unduly
21 prolonged. Id. at 2, 4. Respondents filed a return stating that they did not oppose a bond
22 hearing. ECF No. 4 at 1. On April 16, 2026, the Court granted the Petition and directed the
23 government to arrange a bond hearing within seven days at which the government bears
24 the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk.
25 ECF No. 6 at 1.
26 On April 23, 2026, Petitioner timely received a bond hearing before an immigration
27 judge, at which the immigration judge denied bond based on risk of flight. See ECF No. 9-
28 2 (order of immigration judge).
1 Thereafter, on May 26, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce the Court’s order
2 directing a bond hearing. ECF No. 9. Respondents have opposed. ECF No. 11.
3 Petitioner’s motion argues in conclusory terms that the immigration judge did not
4 correctly apply the burden of proof. ECF No. 9 at 1, 3. Petitioner states that he has no
5 criminal record and no prior immigration violations, and contends that he has a U.S. citizen
6 sponsor available. Id. at 2. He also states that he was given insufficient time to prepare for
7 his bond hearing, id., although the immigration judge’s order indicates that “[t]he Court
8 trailed this case to the final date authorized by the Order for [Petitioner] to notify his alleged
9 lawyer and alleged sponsor to provide some evidence, yet the Respondent provided
10 nothing.” ECF No. 9-2 at 2. Petitioner’s motion also states that an immigration judge “must
11 consider alternatives to detention and petitioner’s financial circumstance and that challenge
12 is properly directed to the Board of Immigration [] Appeals.” ECF No. 9 at 1. Petitioner
13 further states that he has exhausted administrative remedies in that he has appealed his
14 denial of bond to the BIA, which appeal is pending. Id.
15 The Ninth Circuit “require[s], as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust
16 available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Castro-
17 Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by
18 Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006). A court may require prudential
19 exhaustion when:
20
(1) agency expertise makes agency consideration necessary to generate
21 a proper record and reach a proper decision; (2) relaxation of the
requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the
22
administrative scheme; and (3) administrative review is likely to allow
23 the agency to correct its own mistakes and to preclude the need for
judicial review.
24
25 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Puga v. Chertoff, 488
26 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007)). “When a petitioner does not exhaust administrative
27 remedies, a district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition without prejudice or
28 stay the proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies, unless exhaustion is
1 excused.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, “a
2 court may waive the prudential exhaustion requirement if ‘administrative remedies are
3 inadequate or not efficacious, pursuit of administrative remedies would be a futile gesture,
4 irreparable injury will result, or the administrative proceedings would be void.’”
5 Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 988 (quoting Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir.
6 2004)).
7 The Ninth Circuit has applied the exhaustion doctrine to circumstances similar to
8 those presented here—where a noncitizen seeks review, through a habeas proceeding, of
9 an immigration judge’s denial of bond. See Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160 (“Here, [the
10 petitioner] pursued habeas review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before appealing
11 to the BIA. This short cut was improper. Leonardo should have exhausted administrative
12 remedies by appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s
13 decision.”). Irrespective of the prudential exhaustion doctrine, however, the Court retains
14 jurisdiction to determine whether a party has complied with its earlier habeas order. Id. at
15 1161 (“[T]he district court had authority to review compliance with its earlier order
16 conditionally granting habeas relief.”).
17 Although Petitioner’s motion argues in general terms that the immigration judge
18 misapplied the burden of proof in contravention of this Court’s order, his claims appear to
19 be routine claims of error that are properly reviewed in Petitioner’s pending appeal to the
20 BIA, the administrative tribunal established to review such claims and possessing expertise
21 in such review. The Court declines to act as a parallel appellate administrative tribunal in
22 addressing the merits of the claimed errors here, where doing so would effectively
23 encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative review process, designed to allow the
24 agency to correct its own errors. Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Leonardo,
25 the Court requires exhaustion of these issues, determines that the prudential exhaustion
26 requirement applies here, and declines to waive that requirement.
27 //
28 //
1 For the foregoing reasons, the motion to enforce [ECF No. 9] is DENIED. The Court
2 DENIES Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 8], as Petitioner has
3 ||not shown “exceptional circumstances” warranting such an appointment here. See Palmer
4 || v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 25, 2026 Kehut ¢ Lowe
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28