1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MARIELA ALATORRE RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02940-RBM-JLB

13 Petitioner, ORDER RE EMERGENCY 14 v. REQUEST TO CLARIFY CLERICAL ERROR AND TO 15 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, REQUEST APPROPRIATE et al., 16 REMEDY Respondents. 17 [Doc. 13] 18 19 On December 1, 2025, the Court granted Petitioner’s Petition for Petition of Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 11.) The Court ordered Respondents to immediately release 21 Petitioner “subject to the same bond and conditions of release as ordered by the 22 immigration judge on August 20, 2025.” (Id. at 10.) On December 3, 2025, Petitioner 23 filed an Emergency Request to Clarify Clerical Error and to Request Appropriate Remedy 24 (“Emergency Request”), notifying the Court that Respondents have not released Petitioner 25 because the immigration judge had not issued Petitioner a bond on August 20, 2025. (Doc. 26 11 at 1.) Upon receipt of the Emergency Request, the Court ordered the Parties to file a 27 joint supplemental brief clarifying the record. (Doc. 14.) The Parties timely filed their 28 Joint Supplemental Brief. (Doc. 15.) 1 In the Joint Supplemental Brief, the Parties indicated that the August 20, 2025 bond 2 determination in the record (see Doc. 1 at 14) “does not relate to Petitioner and that 3 Petitioner was never granted bond by an immigration judge on August 20, 2025.” (Doc. 4 15 at 2.) Petitioner was, however, released from immigration custody on March 16, 2009 5 on a $1,500 bond. (Doc. 15-1 at 2.) The Court appreciates the Parties’ timely cooperation 6 in clarifying the record. 7 The Parties now dispute only the appropriate remedy: whether Petitioner should be 8 immediately released or receive a new bond hearing. (Doc. 15 at 2.) Chief Judge Bashant’s 9 opinion in Lopez-Mendez v. LaRose is instructive. Case No. 25-cv-03037-BAS-DDL, 10

, at *1–4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025). There, the petitioner entered the 11 United States in 1998, was arrested in 2017, and on June 23, 2017 was released on a $5,000 12 bond. Id. at *1. For the next eight years before he was re-detained, the petitioner “lived in 13 the United States with his wife and children . . . checked in regularly with Immigration and 14 Customs Enforcement, . . . and was given a work permit and a Social Security number.” 15 Id. The court, after finding that the petitioner was being unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. 16 § 1226, granted the petition and ordered the petitioner released “from immigration custody 17 on the same $5,000 bond and conditions of release as ordered by the Immigration Judge on 18 June 23, 2017.” Id. at 4. 19 Here, Petitioner entered the United States in 1991, was arrested in March 2009, and 20 on March 16, 2009 was released on a $1,500 bond. (Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 15-1 at 2.) For the 21 next 15 years before she was re-detained, Petitioner lived in the United States with her 22 siblings and children and worked as a caregiver for the elderly. (See Doc. 1 at 20–52.) As 23 the Court already determined, Petitioner is being unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1226. (Doc. 11 at 7–9.) Therefore, the Court now ORDERS Respondents to 25 immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to the same $1,500 bond and 26 conditions of release as ordered by the immigration judge on March 16, 2009. (See Doc. 27 15-1 at 2.) 28 / / / 1 The Court disagrees that “the proper remedy in this matter is . . . an individualized 2 || bond hearing under

(a).” (Doc. 15 at 2.) This argument “misapprehend[s] 3 ||the purpose of a pre-detention hearing: if Petitioner is detained, [s]he will already have 4 suffered the injury [s]he is now seeking to avoid.” Jorge M.F. v. Jennings,

(N.D. Cal. 2021); see also E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley,

, 6 || 1324 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2025) (“Although the Government notes that Petitioner may 7 || request a bond hearing while detained, such a post-deprivation hearing cannot serve as an 8 adequate procedural safeguard because it is after the fact and cannot prevent an erroneous 9 deprivation of liberty.”); Domingo v. Kaiser, Case No. 25-cv-05893 (RFL),

|} 1940179, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) (“Even if Petitioner[] received a prompt post- 11 || detention bond hearing under

(a) and was released at that point, [s]he will 12 already suffered the harm that is the subject of h[er] motion; that is, h[er] potentially 13 || erroneous detention.”’). 14 1. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release 16 || Petitioner from custody, subject to the same $1,500 bond and conditions of release as 17 || ordered by the immigration judge on March 16, 2009. (See Doc. 15-1 at 2.) 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATE: December 4, 2025 Bitrate ater 1 ON. RUTH BERM@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28