Daniel Nicolas Mateo v. Jeremy Casey, Warden of Imperial Regional Detention...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL NICOLAS MATEO, Case No.: 25cv3713-LL-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 JEREMY CASEY, Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility; et al., 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondents.

18 Before the Court is Petitioner Daniel Nicolas Mateo’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a Return in which they acknowledge that (1) Petitioner is a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025); (2) a final judgment has been entered as to the Bond Eligible Class; and (3) per the entry of final judgment, Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 4; see also Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, / / / / / / / / / 1 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (entering final judgment for members of the Bond Eligible Class).!

3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 4 1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.’

5 2. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing || before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the || date of this order.

8 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this || case.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: January 12, 2026 NO 12 QF 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 4 United States District Judge || 24 Subsequent to entry of judgment, the respondents in Maldonado Bautista filed a Notice ||of Appeal. However, the Ninth Circuit has held the filing of an appeal does not suspend the preclusive effect of a lower court judgment. Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

Petitioner requests attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Pet. at 29], which the Court DENIES without prejudice.