Full Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE MANUEL ABADIN Case No. EDCV 26-4779 PVC PEREZ, 12 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION AND 13 IMMEDIATE RELEASE v. 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 15 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 16 Respondent. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 19 20 Petitioner Jose Manuel Abadin Perez (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition for Writ 21 of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), against Respondent U.S. 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement on August 20, 2026. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1). 23 The Petition states that Petitioner, a citizen of Cuba, has been in immigration 24 custody since August 3, 2026. (Id. at 4).1 Petitioner is currently detained at the 25 26 1 For ease of reference, when referring to the filings, the Court uses page numbers 27 generated by CM/ECF. These numbers are printed in a blue ribbon at the top of each page filed on the docket. 28 1 Adelanto ICE Processing Facility in Adelanto, California. (Id. at 1). 2 3 On August 21, 2026, the Court issued the Notice of General Order 26-05 and 4 Briefing Schedule. (Dkt. No. 4). Therein, the Court “direct[ed] Respondent to show 5 cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted,” and set an expedited briefing 6 schedule on the Petition. (Id. at 1–2). 7 8 On August 28, 2026, Respondent filed a Notice of Intended Removal and Response 9 to Petition, informing the Court that on August 24, 2026, ICE informed Petitioner that 10 ICE intends to remove him to Mexico and arguing that “the Petition does not state a valid 11 claim for release.” (Dkt. No. 8 at 2). 12 13 On August 31, 2026, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary 14 Restraining Order and/or a Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order barring Petitioner’s 15 removal from the United States to any nation other than Cuba during the pendency and 16 review of the Petition. (Dkt. No. 9 at 2). On that same day, the previously assigned 17 District Judge ordered Respondent to respond to the ex parte application by September 3, 18 2026. (Dkt. No. 10). On September 4, 2026, the previously assigned District Judge 19 entered an order noting that Respondent did not file a timely response to the ex parte 20 application and granting the application based on Respondent’s failure to timely respond. 21 (Dkt. No. 13). The Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Respondent from 22 removing Petitioner from the United States to any nation other than Cuba during the 23 pendency of this action. (Id. at 2). 24 25 On September 10, 2026, Petitioner filed an “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 26 Corpus; Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.” (Dkt. No. 14). The Amended Petition alleges 27 that his detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(A)(6), Due Process under the Fifth 28 Amendment, and statutory withholding and convention against torture protections in 1 connection with third country removal. (Id. at 10–21). The Petition seeks relief in the 2 form of an order requiring that Respondent immediately release Petitioner under 3 reasonable conditions of supervision; enjoining Respondent from re-detaining 4 Petitioner without first providing him constitutionally adequate process and 5 establishing a lawful basis for renewed detention consistent with the Fifth 6 Amendment and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); declaring that the August 7 24, 2026 Notice of Removal, standing alone, does not provide Petitioner 8 constitutionally adequate process for removal to Mexico because it does not inform 9 him of the legal basis for the designation, the timing of the proposed removal, or 10 the procedures through which he may seek withholding or CAT protections as to 11 Mexico; permanently enjoining Respondent from removing Petitioner to Mexico or 12 another third country not identified in the operative exclusion and deportation 13 order, unless and until Respondent provides constitutionally adequate notice and a 14 meaningful opportunity to consult counsel and pursue any applicable withholding, 15 CAT, reopening, or other country specific protection before removal; and awarding 16 Petitioner his costs. (Id. at 21–22). 17 18 On September 10, 2026, also, Petitioner filed a Consent to Proceed before the 19 undersigned Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 15). On September 21, 2026, the District 20 Judge approved the parties’ consent to the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 16). 21 22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), Petitioner was 23 entitled to amend his Petition once as a matter of course no later than 21 days after 24 service of the Answer. The Answer was served on August 28, 2026. (Dkt. No. 8). 25 Therefore, the Amended Petition, which was filed 13 days later, on September 10, 26 2026, was properly filed without leave of Court. (Dkt. No. 14). Respondent was 27 required to respond to the Amended Petition within 14 days after service of the 28 Amended Petition, or by September 24, 2026. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). 1 Respondent has neither responded to the Amended Petition nor sought an extension 2 of time to do so. (See generally Court Docket). 3 4 The Court has reviewed the unrebutted Amended Petition. For the reasons 5 discussed below, the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. 6 7 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8 9 Petitioner is a non-citizen and a native of Cuba presently detained at the ICE 10 detention facility in Adelanto, California. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 1). He has been in 11 immigration custody since August 3, 2026. (Id. at 4). Respondent announced that it 12 intends to remove Petitioner to Mexico. (Dkt. No. 8 at 2). The Notice of Intended 13 Removal identifies a final removal order issued on September 24, 1990. (Id.; Dkt. No. 8- 14 1). That final removal order does not identify Mexico as the country of removal. (Dkt. 15 No. 8-1). The Notice of Removal served on Petitioner does not identify the legal basis for 16 selecting Mexico; explain what protection procedures are available; solicit a fear 17 response; or provide a deadline for consulting counsel, gathering evidence, or seeking 18 reopening. (Dkt. No. 8-2). 19 20 III. LEGAL STANDARD 21 22 Habeas relief extends to those who can show they are “in custody in violation of 23 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 24 Although Congress has barred courts from reviewing certain discretionary decisions 25 concerning detention or release of noncitizens subject to removal proceedings, see 8 26 U.S.C. §§ 1226(e), 1252(g), federal courts retain jurisdiction to “review related 27 ‘constitutional claims or questions of law.’” Martinez v. Clark, 36 F.4th 1219, 1224 (9th 28 Cir. 2022) (quoting Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011)), vacated on 1 other grounds by ___ U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 1339, 218 L.Ed.2d 418 (2024). Petitioner 2 makes such reviewable claims here. 3 4 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that a Court “entertaining an application for a writ 5 of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent 6 to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application 7 that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Here, via General Order 26- 8 05, the Court directed Respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. (See 9 Dkt. No. 4). Pursuant to Section 2243, Respondent was required in the Answer to certify 10 “the true cause of the detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 11 12 IV. DISCUSSION 13 14 Rule 15(a)(3) required Respondent to respond to the Amended Petition by 15 September 24, 2026. As it did in response to the District Judge’s earlier Order 16 requiring a response to the ex parte application for a TRO (Dkt. No. 10), however, 17 Respondent failed to respond at all to the Amended Petition. Respondent seems to 18 have lost any interest or intent to contest this case, including to comply with the 19 requirement that they – as the ones detaining Petitioner – “make a return certifying 20 the true cause of the detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 21 22 Local Rule 7-12 provides that “[t]he failure to file any required document … 23 may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion[.]” The Court 24 deems Respondent’s failure to file an Answer to the Amended Petition in this case 25 – despite having notice of its obligation to do so and an opportunity to be heard in 26 opposition to the Petition – to be its consent to granting the relief sought in that 27 pleading. 28 1 In light of Respondent’s concession and after considering the uncontested 2 allegations of the Amended Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner is presently in 3 custody of Respondent in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 4 States, as alleged in the Amended Petition. 5 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 7 8 (1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED; 9 10 (2) Respondent is ordered to immediately release Petitioner Jose Manuel 11 Abadin Perez (A-number 024459628) under reasonable conditions of 12 supervision; 13 (3) Respondent is permanently enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without 14 first providing him constitutionally adequate process and establishing a 15 lawful basis for renewed detention consistent with the Fifth Amendment 16 and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); 17 18 (4) The Court finds that the August 24, 2026 Notice of Removal, standing 19 alone, does not provide Petitioner constitutionally adequate process for 20 removal to Mexico because it does not inform him of the legal basis for 21 the designation, the timing of the proposed removal, or the procedures 22 through which he may seek withholding or CAT protections as to 23 Mexico; 24 (5) Respondent is permanently enjoined from removing Petitioner to Mexico 25 or another third country not identified in the operative exclusion and 26 deportation order, unless and until Respondent provides constitutionally 27 adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel and 28 1 pursue any applicable withholding, CAT, reopening, or other country 2 specific protection before removal; ° (6) Respondent shall file within two days of the date of the Court’s Order, a status report confirming Petitioner’s release; (7) Any fee motion must be filed within the deadlines set by the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and this Court's Local Rules; the Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate any such motion or other collateral enforcement issues; and 11 (8) Judgment shall be entered consistent with this Memorandum Decision 12 and Order. 13 . 14 || DATED: October 16, 2026 fu PEDROV.CASTILLO 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28