# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. California · September 1, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11433197

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenner Antonio Corrales Guidel v. Jeremy Casey, Warden of the Imperial Regional Detention Facility; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Officer Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** September 1, 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/11433197

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KENNER ANTONIO CORRALES Case No.: 26cv3728 DMS (BJW)
GUIDEL,
12
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
Petitioner,
13
v.
14
JEREMY CASEY, Warden of the
15
Imperial Regional Detention Facility;
16 JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Officer
Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S.
17
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
18 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Homeland
19
Security; TODD M. LYONS, Acting
20 Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; TODD BLANCHE, Acting
21
Attorney General of the United States,
22
Respondents.
23
24 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
25 Corpus. (ECF No. 9.) Respondents filed a Response, stating that—in light of Rodriguez
26 Vasquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6841, 2026 WL 219424, — F.4th — (9th Cir. July 30, 2026)—
27 Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Respondents
28 also acknowledge that immigration authorities previously released Petitioner on
1 conditional parole issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id.) Accordingly, Respondents do not
2 oppose the Petition and defer to the Court on the appropriate relief. (Id.) Petitioner filed a
3 Reply. (ECF No. 12.)
4 I.
5 BACKGROUND
6 On December 6, 2021, Petitioner, a national of Nicaragua, arrived at the U.S.-
7 Mexico border in El Paso, Texas and was taken into immigration custody. (ECF No. 9 at
8 4.) Petitioner remained in immigration custody for nine days. (Id.) During this time,
9 immigration authorities conducted a credible fear interview, during which Petitioner
10 explained his fear of returning to Nicaragua after he was targeted by police for participating
11 in student protests. (Id.) On December 15, 2021, Petitioner was released on his own
12 recognizance with conditions in place. (Id.) Petitioner has complied with the conditions of
13 his release for over four years. (Id.)
14 On May 4, 2026, Petitioner attended his immigration court hearing in Florida, where
15 his application for asylum was denied. (Id.) Petitioner has appealed that ruling to the Board
16 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Id. at 5.) Following the hearing, Petitioner was arrested
17 and detained by immigration authorities. (Id.) Initially, Petitioner was detained in Florida
18 but has since been transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico,
19 California. (Id.) On May 18, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing before an
20 immigration judge (“IJ”) but was denied release because the IJ concluded that it was
21 “without jurisdiction to determine bond” in Petitioner’s case under Matter of Yajure-
22 Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 21[6] (BIA 2025). (Id.) While Petitioner’s asylum denial is pending,
23 Petitioner remains detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility.
24 On June 25, 2026, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his first Petition for a Writ of
25 Habeas Court, challenging his continued detention at the Imperial Regional Detention
26 Facility. (See generally ECF No. 1.) On June 30, 2026, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s
27 first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with leave to amend “because it [was] missing
28 crucial information for the Court to evaluate whether a response [was] warranted.” (Id. at
1 1.) On July 20, 2026, Petitioner filed his First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
2 Corpus and Motion to Appoint Counsel. (See generally ECF Nos. 4–5.) Pursuant to Chief
3 Judge Order No. 132-A, this Court granted Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel
4 on July 23, 2026.
5 On July 30, 2026, Petitioner filed his Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas
6 Corpus, challenging his arrest at the immigration courthouse and his re-detention under the
7 Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
8 (“ICE”)’s policy regarding immigration enforcement near courthouses, and the Fifth
9 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. On August 7, 2026, Respondents filed a Response. On
10 August 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a Reply. (ECF No. 12.)
11 II.
12 LEGAL STANDARD
13 “Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . district courts . . . within their
14 respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A petitioner prevails in his petition for writ
15 of habeas corpus if he shows that his custody violates the Constitution or laws of the United
16 States. Id. § 2241(c)(3). The writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained
17 within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004).
18 III.
19 DISCUSSION
20 The Court finds Petitioner’s detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
21 Clause and therefore grants the Petition. When determining whether Petitioner’s
22 procedural due process rights have been violated, the Court must consider:
23 [f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second,
the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures
24
used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural
25 safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function
involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or
26
substitute procedural requirement would entail.
27
28 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
1 First, Petitioner has a liberty interest—the interest in being free from
2 imprisonment—because he had previously been released on his own recognizance at the
3 time of his re-detention. Munoz Materano v. Arteta, 804 F. Supp. 3d 395, 416 (S.D.N.Y.
4 2025) (citation modified) (citation omitted); Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1164
5 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding the petitioner “has a private interest in remaining free, which
6 developed over the year he resided in the United States”). This factor weighs in Petitioner’s
7 favor.
8 Next, there is a high risk of an erroneous deprivation of this liberty interest when
9 noncitizens are re-detained without a hearing. See, e.g., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, 806 F.
10 Supp. 3d 1069, 1089 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025) (citing cases). Respondents acknowledge
11 that Petitioner was previously released from immigration custody on conditional parole.
12 (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Nonetheless, Respondents detained Petitioner after his immigration
13 court hearing on May 4, 2026. (ECF No. 9 at 4.) Petitioner maintains that he did not receive
14 written notice regarding the termination of his conditional parole and was not provided
15 with a hearing where he could contest his re-detention. (Id. at 4–5.) Respondents do not
16 specifically respond to Petitioner’s allegations beyond providing a broad statement that
17 Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Thus, the
18 Court accepts Petitioner’s allegations as true and finds that Petitioner was re-detained
19 without adequate process. Accordingly, the second factor – the risk of an erroneous
20 deprivation of such interest through the procedures used – weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
21 Finally, “[t]he government may have a ‘strong interest’ in detaining noncitizens
22 during the pendency of removal proceedings as needed to protect the public from
23 dangerous criminal aliens, or to prevent flight and thereby increase the chance that the
24 aliens will be successfully removed.” Pablo Sequen, 806 F. Supp. 3d at 1090 (citation
25 modified) (quoting Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1208 (9th Cir. 2022)). But
26 when the Government previously decided to release a noncitizen, and there is no evidence
27 of any material, changed circumstances that might have caused the Government to
28 reconsider that decision, its interest in re-detention is low. Doe v. Chestnut, No. 25-cv-
1 ||01372-CDB, 2025 WL 3295154, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (citations omitted).
2 ||Here, the Government has submitted no evidence of changed circumstances to justify
3 || Petitioner’s re-detention after releasing him on conditional parole. (See generally ECF No.
4 Thus, this factor also weighs in Petitioner’s favor. Applying the Mathews balancing
5 || test, the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention violates his right to due process.
6 IV.
7 CONCLUSION
8 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Second Amended
9 || Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 9.)' Respondents shall release Petitioner
10 || forthwith. Respondents shall not re-detain Petitioner without first providing a pre-
11 || deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which Respondents must prove that
12 || material, changed circumstances related to flight risk or danger warrant Petitioner’s re-
13 detention. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report within 72 hours of this Order’s filing,
14 ||confirming Petitioner has been released. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
15 || accordingly and close this case.
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 ||Dated: September 1, 2026
18 nm Bb
19 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 The Court need not address Petitioner’s claim arising under the APA and ICE’s policy regarding civil
immigration enforcement near courthouses because the Petition can be resolved on due process grounds.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11433197. Public record. Not legal advice.