Orlando Alfredo Gimenez Gil v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ORLANDO ALFREDO GIMENEZ GIL, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03279-DMS-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondents.

On November 25, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”). (Pet., ECF No. 1). Respondents filed a return (“Return”). (Return, ECF No. 7). Petitioner did not file a reply.

Respondents represented in their Return that on July 13, 2024, Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, issued a Notice to Appear, and released from custody on humanitarian parole. (Return 2). On June 24, 2025, Petitioner’s case was dismissed during an immigration court appearance. (Id.). On the same day, Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, issued a new Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, and placed in expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 26 1225(b)(1). (Id.). Respondents did not parole Petitioner. (See id.). Petitioner then requested asylum or protection under the Convention Against Torture. (Id.). Petitioner was interviewed by a Citizenship and Immigration services asylum who made a “positive determination” on Petitioner’s case. (Id. at 2–3). Petitioner was issued a new Notice to Appear, re-charged with inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and re-placed in removal proceedings under § 1229a. (Id. at 3). He has since been mandatorily detained under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). (Id.).

6 The Petition asserts that Petitioner’s detention violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clauses and the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive punishment. (Pet. 2–4). Petitioner mainly argues that the length of his detention is unconstitutional. (See id.). Without deciding the merits of Petitioner’s argument, the Court finds that dismissing Petitioner’s pending removal proceedings and soon thereafter initiating new expedited removal proceedings without providing parole or an opportunity to be heard may raise due process concerns under Mathews v. Eldridge. 424 U.S. 319 13 (1976); see Noori v. Larose, No. 25-cv-1824, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11–12 (S.D. Cal. Oct.

14 1, 2025); Munoz Materano v. Arteta, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 2630826, *11–16 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2025). It appears this practice has been increasingly employed following the implementation of the January 2025 Designation, Office of the Secretary, Dep’t of Homeland Security, Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 15 Fed. Reg. 18 8139 (“2025 Designation”). Noori, 2025 WL 2800149, at *4–5.

19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file a supplemental return, no later than Friday, December 12, 2025, at 4:30 PM, addressing the following issues: 21 (1) whether Petitioner’s parole was revoked prior to the dismissal of his removal proceedings on June 24, 2025; 23 (2) whether the dismissal of Petitioner’s removal proceedings and initiation of expedited removal proceedings without parole or an opportunity to be heard violates Petitioner’s due process rights under Mathews v. Eldridge; and 26 (3) whether the 2025 Designation applies to individuals, like Petitioner, who entered the United States prior to its effective date.

1 Petitioner may file a reply no later than Monday, December 15, 2025, at 4:30 PM.!

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 ||Dated: December 9, 2025 4 2 Yn. Lh) Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 5 United States District Judge ' Because Petitioner did not file an initial reply, Petitioner may not respond to arguments contained in Respondents’ initial Return.