U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2026

Escalante-Gonzalez v. Mullin

Escalante-Gonzalez v. Mullin
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 26, 2026
Escalante-Gonzalez v. Mullin

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACK DANNER ESCALANTE- No. 26-3092 GONZALEZ, D.C. No. 2:26-cv-02143-MTL--MTM Petitioner - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; SIRCE OWEN, named as: Sirce Owen, Acting Director of Executive Office for Immigration Review, in her official capacity; LUIS ROSA, Jr., Warden of the Florence Correctional Center, in his official capacity, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Jack Danner Escalante-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 781 (9th Cir. 2024), and we vacate and remand.

Escalante-Gonzalez contends the district court erred by summarily denying his § 2241 petition. We agree. Escalante-Gonzalez’s petition raises a cognizable, non-frivolous claim regarding his detention. See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, --- F.4th ---, No. 25-6842, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). We vacate the district court’s March 30, 2026, judgment and order denying his § 2241 petition and remand for the district court to direct the government to be served and to file a response. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1047 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[The] petition alleged a cognizable, non-frivolous claim, and thus, the district court erred by summarily dismissing his petition.”); see also id. at n.2 (remanding to the district court for further proceedings without weighing in on the merits of the petition).

The mandate will issue forthwith.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 26-3092

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Escalante-Gonzalez’s request for oral argument is therefore denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.