AUSA in an immigration detention case was directed to respond to the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim and completely failed, only repeating the government\u2019s theory of the case. Petitioner was finally released. The AUSA doesn\u2019t get sanctioned, but the court is troubled by the dissembling. Torre v. Lyons, DJC-CSK, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51525 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2026)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
While falling short of being sanctionable \u201cbad faith,\u201d we retain a lingering concern over whether counsel fully comprehends the nature and extent of her obligations to craft her submissions to fully and substantively respond to the Petitioner’s allegations. Attorneys, of course, are required to present the factual and legal arguments that support their client’s positions and rebut opponent’s factual allegations as well as opponent’s legal arguments, but when the Court unequivocally orders a particular response be made to specific issues, counsel is obligated to comply with that order.
Petitioner also presents no explanation for how a Fourth Amendment claim based on his October 2025 arrest can be raised in this current habeas petition, which was filed after Petitioner was re-arrested and re-detained in November 2025. Therefore, to the extent a Fourth Amendment claim is still being asserted, the Court concludes that the claim fails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, these descriptions miss the point. We do not dispute that Respondents did in fact include an explication of their theory for why Mr. Rojas Pedroza’s detention was lawful, but the Court’s orders stemmed from her repeated refusal to address Mr. Rojas Pedroza’s specific arguments for why he was entitled to be released. Even construing counsel’s response in a way favorable to her, it is clear that she entirely failed to address Mr. Rojas Pedroza’s claims that he had been arrested and detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1357, or related regulations. We proffer that it is virtually impossible to rebut a Fourth Amendment argument (or a statutory argument) without ever mentioning the Fourth Amendment (or the statute.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Respondent’s attorney, rather than confronting this habeas corpus petitioner’s factual allegations and legal arguments head on, simply repeated her client’s theory of the case. Thus, the Court’s explicit directive to counsel: to “specifically address \u2026 the arguments presented in the habeas petition.” Dkt. 7 at 2 (emphasis added). Counsel’s legal justification for Mr. Rojas Pedroza’s detention was simply not responsive. Counsel’s job does not begin and end simply by presenting her client’s theory of the case. Even if a habeas petitioner advances an argument that is legally or factually untenable, counsel is obligated to address that argument by explaining why it is either irrelevant and\/or erroneous. If a habeas petitioner advances an argument based on inapplicable legal principles, counsel for Respondents must lay out the basis for their disagreement. It is simply insufficient for counsel to restate her client’s best case and leave to the Court the determination of how that theory fares against her opponent’s arguments and whose arguments ultimately prevail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
AUSA in an immigration detention case was directed to respond to the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim and completely failed, only repeating the government\u2019s theory of the case. Petitioner was finally released. The AUSA doesn\u2019t get sanctioned, but the court is … Continue reading