(HC)Gramajo Lopez v. Garland ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR GRAMAJO LOPEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-00531-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v. ORDER SETTING HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2022, AT 10:00 A.M. 14 MERRICK GARLAND, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, represented by counsel, is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to the 19 jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 16–18.) 20 Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary 21 restraining order (“motion for TRO”), asserting that his prolonged detention is unconstitutional 22 and requesting a court order requiring Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from 23 detention or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge. (ECF Nos. 1, 24 2.) Respondents have filed an opposition to the motion for TRO and a motion to dismiss the 25 petition, arguing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and his continued detention 26 without a bond hearing is constitutional. (ECF No. 19.) 27 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 1 | courts throughout this circuit have ordered immigration courts to conduct bond hearings for 2 | noncitizens held for prolonged periods under § 1226(c)” and noted that “[a]ccording to one such 3 | court order, the “prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond 4 | hearing, will—at some point—violate the right to due process.’” Martinez v. Clark, 36 F.4th 5 | 1219, 1223 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Martinez v. Clark, No. 18-cv-01669-RAJ, 2019 WL 6 | 5962685, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2019)). District courts in this circuit have taken various 7 | approaches to determining whether due process requires a bond hearing in a particular case. See, 8 | e.g., Juarez v. Wolf, No. C20-1660-RJB-MLP, 2021 WL 2323436, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 9 | 2021); Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off., No. 3:19-CV-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1862254, at *3—-4 (D. 10 | Or. Mar. 25, 2020); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1116-18 (W.D. Wash. 2019); 11 | Martinez, 2019 WL 5968089, at *6—-9; Rodriguez v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv-04187-TSH, 2019 WL 12 | 7491555, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019). 13 The Court finds that supplemental briefing on which approach or test, if any, is applicable 14 | would assist the Court in this matter. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 15 1. The parties may file supplemental briefs on this issue by August 26, 2022; and 16 2. The matter is set for a hearing on the motion for TRO, the motion to dismiss, and the 17 petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 7, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate 18 Judge Stanley A. Boone via videoconference. Prior to the hearing date, Courtroom 19 Deputy Victoria Gonzales will email the parties with instructions regarding the 20 videoconference. 21 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _ August 3, 2022 _ Of 05 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28