# Opinion > District Court, E.D. California · August 17, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11438820 ## Case - **Full name:** Roydi Lazo Cordova v. Warden, California City Correction Center, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** August 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/11438820 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROYDI LAZO CORDOVA, Case No. 1:26-cv-02843-JLT-SAB 12 Petitioner, A-Number: 240-740-345 13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN PART; 14 WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY DENYING THE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CORRECTION CENTER, ET AL., RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT; AND 15 DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE Respondents. A SUBSTANTIVE BOND HEARING 16 (Docs. 1, 2) 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Before the Court Roydi Lazo Cordova’s request for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 20 2), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention. (Doc. 1.) For the foregoing reasons, the Court 22 GRANTS IN PART the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 23 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner is from Peru, and he entered the United States in May 2022, where he was 25 encountered by U.S. Border Patrol officials near Calexico, California. (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 15; Doc. 7- 26 1 at 3.) Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear and charged as removable pursuant to § 27 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and released from custody. (Doc. 7-1 at 28 3.) In August 2025, the Petitioner was arrested for DUI in Fremont, California, and the case 1 remains pending. (Doc. 1 at 4, ¶ 17.) On or about April 9, 2026, the Petitioner was detained by 2 ICE when he went to his required ICE check-in appointment. (Id. at ¶ 18.) The Petitioner is 3 detained at the California City Corrections Center in California City, California. (Id. at ¶ 19. On 4 April 14, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 5 asserting, inter alia, that his due process rights have been violated. (Doc. 1 at 5-6.) On July 29, 6 2026, an immigration court denied Petitioner’s asylum claims and withholding of removal under 7 the INA. (Doc. 10 at 4.) On or about August 4, 2025, Petitioner timely appealed the decision to 8 the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Id.) 9 III. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has the authority to determine a petition for writ of 11 habeas corpus in which the petitioner asserts he is being held in custody “in violation of the 12 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack 13 by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the 14 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 15 Petitioner seeks his immediate release from custody, which he contends violates the Fifth 16 Amendment Due Process Clause under the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 at 5-6.) Thus, he 17 properly invokes the Court’s habeas jurisdiction. 18 The INA limits judicial review in many instances. Though 8 U.S.C § 1252(g) precludes 19 this Court from exercising jurisdiction over the executive’s decision to “commence proceedings, 20 adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien,” there is no removal order at issue 21 here and the central issue is Petitioner’s continued detention. Thus, this Court has the authority 22 to review Petitioner’s habeas petition. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018) 23 (holding that § 1252(g) precludes judicial review only as to the three areas specifically outlined 24 in the subsection); Reno v. American–Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 25 (1999). 26 IV. DISCUSSION 27 Respondents argue that as an “applicant for admission” under expedited removal 28 procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), Petitioner’s detention is therefore “mandatory.” 1 (Doc. 7 at 1-2.) Pursuant to Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2 2026), the Court finds that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s detention. See 3 also, J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01309-JLT-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Ortiz 4 Donis v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01228-JLT-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 32879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 5 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT (HC), 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6 24, 2025); Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. 7 Sept. 5, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. 8 Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. 9 Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026). 11 Considering Petitioner’s recent DUI charge, the Court finds that the appropriate remedy 12 here is a bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proving that Petitioner now 13 poses a danger to the community or flight risk. See C.A.R.V. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01395 14 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 3059549, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (granting preliminary injunction 15 and ordering substantive bond hearing for petitioner who pleaded guilty to DUI and possession 16 of open container while driving); Quispe v. Warden, Golden State Annex, No. 1:26-CV-02557- 17 JLT-SAB, 2026 WL 1023866, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2026) (granting petition for habeas 18 corpus and ordering substantive bond hearing for petitioner detained by ICE immediately 19 following arrest for DUI). 20 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED IN PART for the 21 reasons stated in the orders cited above. 22 2. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, unless Petitioner consents to a 23 later date, Respondent SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond 24 hearing before an immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth 25 in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government 26 must prove by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a 27 danger to the community to justify denial of bond,” Id. at 1203. In the event 28 Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so ] great a flight risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge 2 should consider Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of 3 release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). 4 3. At least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, Petitioner SHALL receive 5 notice of the hearing. Petitioner SHALL have the right to be represented by 6 counsel at the hearing, and she SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing. If 7 her counsel has filed an appearance in the immigration proceedings, at least 72 8 hours before the hearing, counsel SHALL receive notice of the scheduled 9 hearing. 10 4. Respondents SHALL provide a copy of this order to the immigration judge 11 presiding over the bond hearing and SHALL arrange for the bond hearing to be 12 recorded. 13 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the California City Detention Facility in 14 California City, California, with a copy of this Order. 15 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 '7 | Iv Is SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: _August 14, 2026_ ears [Tourn 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11438820. Public record. Not legal advice.