Sandoval-Garcia v. Bondi et al

1
25cv3738-LL-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALEJANDRO SANDOVAL-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of
the United States, in her official capacity,
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25cv3738-LL-MSB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Alejandro Sandoval-Garcia’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. 5; see also Maldonado Bautista v. Noem,
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-03738-LL-MSB Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25cv3738-LL-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 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).1
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED.2 Petitioner’s
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot.
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.
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2026
1 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).
2 Petitioner requests attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act
[Pet. at 16], which the Court DENIES without prejudice.
Case 3:25-cv-03738-LL-MSB Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2