The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SALVADOR EDGAR MEDRANO No. 1:26-cv-02181-DAD-CSK
MARQUEZ,
12
Petitioner,
13 ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
v. OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING
14 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT et al., RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT
15
Respondents. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2)
16
17
18 On March 19, 2026, petitioner, proceeding with the assistance of counsel, filed a petition
19 for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) On the
20 same day, the court issued an order directing respondents to file an opposition to the pending
21 motion in which respondents indicate whether this case is substantively distinguishable from the
22 court’s prior order in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL
23 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). (Doc. No. 4.) On March 20, 2026, respondents filed an
24 opposition to the pending motion. (Doc. No. 7.)
25 Respondents’ argument advanced in their opposition is two-fold: (1) petitioner is lawfully
26 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); and (2) alternatively, if the court rejects this argument, then
27 the proper remedy is an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to
28 § 1226(a). (Id. at 1, 4.) Respondents have argued that this case is distinguishable from Ayala
1 Cajina because petitioner repeatedly violated the terms of his release with respect to reporting
2 and was never assured by DHS that he was entitled to less restrictive monitoring measures. (Id. at
3 3.) On March 23, 2026, petitioner filed a reply to respondents’ opposition. (Doc. No. 8.)
4 Therein, he urges the court to promptly order a bond hearing before an immigration judge where
5 respondents will bear the burden of justifying his continued detention. (Id. at 8.) Both parties
6 have indicated that they are amenable to the court resolving the underlying merits of the petition
7 for writ of habeas corpus based on the briefing currently before the court. (Doc. Nos. 7 at 5; 8 at
8 9.)
9 Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 2.) He entered the
10 United States in 2003 without inspection or admission. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 2.) In 2013, petitioner
11 was detained by immigration officials for approximately 15 days after being arrested for driving
12 under the influence. (Id.; Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 36.) He was subsequently released into the United
13 States with an ankle monitor and enrolled in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program
14 (“ISAP”). (Id.at ¶ 37.) Petitioner was previously ordered removed, but the immigration judge’s
15 decision remains pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 5.) On
16 August 23, 2025, petitioner was re-detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.
17 (Id. at 3.) Respondents argue that petitioner was re-detained for missing multiple mandatory
18 check-ins. (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Petitioner contends that he has always been fully compliant with
19 the terms supervision and stopped receiving dates to check-in with ISAP officials from May to
20 August 2025. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 20.) There is no indication that petitioner was provided advanced
21 notice of his re-detention.
22 Having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s detention and the parties’
23 arguments therein, the court adopts the reasoning in O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-
24 DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221, at *3–5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), where the court held that
25 respondents’ re-detention of the petitioner for purported ISAP violations under similar
26 circumstances violated due process but the appropriate remedy was a bond hearing before an
27 immigration judge.
28 /////
] Accordingly,
2 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED as
3 follows:
4 a. Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with a bond hearing
5 before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) where
6 respondents will have the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing
7 evidence, that petitioner’s continued detention is justified because
8 petitioner is either a flight risk or danger to the community and to do so
9 within ten (10) days of the service of this order.
10 2. Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) is denied as
11 having been rendered moot by this order; and
12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of petitioner and
13 CLOSE this case.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
'° | Dated: _March 24, 2026 Da A. 2, aye
16 DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28