Opinion
1:22-cv-00531-SAB-HC
08-03-2022
HECTOR GRAMAJO LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK GARLAND, et al., Respondents.
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
ORDER SETTING HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2022, AT 10:00 A.M.
Petitioner, represented by counsel, is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 16-18.)
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order (“motion for TRO”), asserting that his prolonged detention is unconstitutional and requesting a court order requiring Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from detention or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Respondents have filed an opposition to the motion for TRO and a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and his continued detention without a bond hearing is constitutional. (ECF No. 19.)
Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to take a position on whether due process requires a bond hearing for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), it has recognized that “district courts throughout this circuit have ordered immigration courts to conduct bond hearings for noncitizens held for prolonged periods under § 1226(c)” and noted that “[a]ccording to one such court order, the ‘prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, will-at some point-violate the right to due process.'” Martinez v. Clark, 36 F.4th 1219, 1223 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Martinez v. Clark, No. 18-cv-01669-RAJ, 2019 WL 5962685, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2019)). District courts in this circuit have taken various approaches to determining whether due process requires a bond hearing in a particular case. See, e.g., Juarez v. Wolf, No. C20-1660-RJB-MLP, 2021 WL 2323436, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2021); Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off., No. 3:19-CV-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1862254, at *3-4 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2020); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1116-18 (W.D. Wash. 2019); Martinez, 2019 WL 5968089, at *6-9; Rodriguez v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv-04187-TSH, 2019 WL 7491555, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019).
The Court finds that supplemental briefing on which approach or test, if any, is applicable would assist the Court in this matter. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The parties may file supplemental briefs on this issue by August 26, 2022; and
2. The matter is set for a hearing on the motion for TRO, the motion to dismiss, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 7, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone via videoconference. Prior to the hearing date, Courtroom Deputy Victoria Gonzales will email the parties with instructions regarding the videoconference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.