# Opinion > District Court, E.D. California · March 17, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377611 ## Case - **Full name:** Juan Bautista Destarde Osoria v. Warden of the California City Detention Center, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** March 17, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377611 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JUAN BAUTISTA DESTARDE OSORIA, Case No. 1:26-cv-01528-KES-EPG-HC 11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. HABEAS CORPUS, DENY RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, 13 WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO DETENTION CENTER, et al., IMMEDIATELY RELEASE PETITIONER 14 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 1, 11) 15 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 16 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 17 (ECF No. 3) 18 19 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends 21 granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus, denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and 22 ordering Petitioner’s immediate release. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 On April 6, 2023, Petitioner applied for admission into the United States. An immigration 26 officer determined Petitioner did not possess documents valid to enter or reside in the United 27 States. (ECF No. 12-1 at 2.1) Petitioner was served with Notice to Appear designating him as an 1 arriving alien that placed him into removal proceedings and was paroled into the United States 2 for a year. (Id.; ECF No. 12-2.) On July 29, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security 3 (“DHS”) made an oral motion to dismiss the case so that DHS could process Petitioner for 4 expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1). (ECF No. 12-3.) The immigration judge (“IJ”) 5 granted DHS’s motion and reserved appeal on behalf of Petitioner. (ECF No. 12-4.) Petitioner 6 was taken into custody that day and has remained detained since then. (ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF No. 7 12 at 2.) On August 22, 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) received Petitioner’s 8 appeal of the dismissal of his immigration case, which remains pending. (ECF Nos. 12-5, 12-6.) 9 On February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising a 10 prolonged detention due process claim. (ECF No. 1 at 6–16.) The Court also construed the 11 petition “as raising a due process claim regarding Petitioner’s re-detention.” (ECF No. 7 at 1.) 12 On March 11, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss all Respondents other than 13 Petitioner’s immediate custodian and a response to the petition. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) 14 II. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Although the deadline for Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents’ response has not yet 17 passed, the undersigned finds that issuance of the findings and recommendation is appropriate. 18 A. Motion to Dismiss 19 Respondents contend that “Petitioner inappropriately named respondents in addition to 20 his immediate custodian. All named respondents besides Petitioner’s immediate custodian must 21 be stricken.” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) “[L]ongstanding practice confirms that in habeas challenges to 22 present physical confinement—‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent 23 is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held . . . .” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 24 426, 435 (2004). The Ninth Circuit has “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian 25 and district of confinement rules to core habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 26 including those filed by immigrant detainees.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 27 2024). 1 When a petition “presents both a core” challenge, such as seeking release from present 2 physical confinement, “and a non-core habeas challenge,” such as enjoining “re-detention absent 3 written notice and a hearing prior to re-detention[,]” this Court has denied the government’s 4 motion to dismiss the remaining respondents because the immediate custodian “has only 5 ‘immediate physical custody of petitioner’ but no outside immigration enforcement 6 responsibilities, while the remaining respondents . . . would make the decision to re-detain” the 7 petitioner. Sofor Njamitoh v. Cruz, No. 1:26-cv-01705-KES-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 701002, at *2 8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2026). Although in Sofor Njamitoh the petition specifically requested the 9 Court to enjoin the government respondents from re-detaining the petitioner absent written notice 10 and a hearing prior to re-detention, the Court finds that denial of the motion to dismiss is 11 warranted in this matter because Petitioner is proceeding without counsel, the petition requests 12 the Court to “[o]rder all other relief that the Court deems just and proper,” (ECF No. 1 at 17), 13 and for the reasons set forth in sections II(C), infra, the undersigned is recommending that the 14 Court enjoin Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and 15 convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that 16 Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally 17 justified. 18 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Respondents’ motion to 19 dismiss be denied. 20 B. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A) 21 Respondents assert that “Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention due to his status as 22 an arriving alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A). Under these circumstances, neither statute nor 23 the Due Process Clause require Petitioner’s release from custody. The Court should therefore 24 deny the Petition.” (ECF No. 12 at 4.) This Court has previously rejected a similar argument: 25 Additionally, petitioner is not now subject to expedited removal, because she was paroled into the United States in 2022. Section 26 1225(b)(1), the expedited removal provision, applies to “an alien ... who is arriving in the United States or ... [a]n alien ... who has not 27 been admitted or paroled into the United States, and who has not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, 1 continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility ....” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii)(II). 3 As someone who has been physically present in the United States for over two years, petitioner is not “an alien ... who is arriving in 4 the United States.” See Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 1012 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that a “person standing at the border is 5 ... [at] the penultimate stage in the process of arriving in the United States” within the meaning of section 1225). And because 6 petitioner was paroled pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), she is not an “alien ... who has not been admitted or paroled ....” Id. The 7 Court agrees with other courts which have found that a noncitizen who has been paroled into the United States cannot later be subject 8 to expedited removal, even if their parole has expired or been terminated. See Coal. for Humane Immigrant Rts. v. Noem, No. 25- 9 CV-872 (JMC), 2025 WL 2192986, at *21–27 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2025); N.Y.V.D. v. Santracruz, No. 5:25-CV-03404-WLH-SP, 10 2025 WL 3786964, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025); Aviles-Mena v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06783-RFL, 2025 WL 2578215, at *4–5 11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025). 12 Robles-Rodriguez v. Lyons, No. 1:25-CV-02001-KES-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 303482, at *3–4 13 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2026). 14 Similarly, here, Petitioner was paroled pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) in April 15 2023, has been physically present in the United States for over two years, and thus, cannot later 16 be subject to expedited removal. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends finding that 17 Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A). 18 C. Procedural Due Process 19 In the order to respond, the undersigned construed the petition “as raising a due process 20 claim regarding Petitioner’s re-detention.” (ECF No. 7 at 1.) See Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 21 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he district court must construe pro se habeas filings liberally.”). 22 “Respondents concede there are no material or factual differences between this case and some of 23 the prior cases in which the Court has found that due process requires some form of pre- 24 deprivation hearing prior to re-detaining a person previously . . . paroled into the United States.” 25 (ECF No. 12 at 2.) 26 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01535-KES- 27 EPG (HC), 2026 WL 40507 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026), and Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-cv- 01471-KES-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3254999 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2025), the undersigned 1 recommends granting the petition on the construed due process claim regarding Petitioner’s re- 2 detention.2 3 D. Appropriate Relief 4 Courts in this district have taken differing approaches to the relief granted to petitioners 5 who have been released, subsequently re-detained, and denied bond hearings in violation of due 6 process. In some cases, the immediate release of the petitioner has been ordered. See, e.g., 7 Yurani Hortua v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01670-TLN-JDP, 2025 WL 3525916 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 8 2025) (ordering immediate release of petitioner who had been released from immigration 9 detention on parole, was arrested for theft but the case was resolved with community service and 10 did not result in a conviction, and was re-detained at a routine six-month check-in); Carmen 11 G.C., 2025 WL 3521304 (ordering immediate release of petitioner who allegedly violated 12 reporting requirements four times); Rocha Chavarria, 2025 WL 3533606 (ordering immediate 13 release of petitioner who allegedly “incurred compliance violations” that were not identified and 14 where respondents did not suggest the alleged violations were the reason for petitioner’s re- 15 detention). 16 In other cases, bond hearings have been ordered rather than immediate release. See, e.g., 17 J.E.H.G., 2025 WL 3523108 (ordering bond hearing for petitioner who allegedly violated 18 reporting requirements numerous times and was re-detained based on said violations); Paz 19 Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) 20 (ordering bond hearing for petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements one time and 21 was re-detained based on said violation); Sharan S., 2025 WL 3167826 (ordering bond hearing 22 for petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements eight times). 23 Here, Respondents do not allege, and there is nothing in the record before this Court, that 24 Petitioner violated his conditions of release. Respondents do not contend that Petitioner is a 25 danger or flight risk. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s immediate release is the 26 appropriate remedy. 27 1 E. Motion to Appoint Counsel 2 Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) There currently exists no 3 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 4 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 5 However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 6 proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” To determine 7 whether to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as 8 well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 9 legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 10 In light of the Court’s conclusion that Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief, the 11 undersigned will deny Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. 12 III. 13 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 14 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 15 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED on the construed due 16 process claim challenging Petitioner’s re-detention. 17 2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be DENIED. 18 3. Respondents be directed to immediately release Petitioner from custody with the same 19 conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention on July 29, 2025. 20 4. Respondents be enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner unless they 21 demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a 22 neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that 23 his physical custody is legally justified. 24 Further, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 25 counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 27 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 1 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 2 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 3 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 4 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed 5 | within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned United States District 6 | Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 7 | The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 8 | right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 9 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12} Dated: _Mareh 17, 2026 [Jee hey — 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11377611. Public record. Not legal advice.