Tito v. Mullin
- 3:26-cv-02178
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
Karina Albino Tito v. Markwayne Mullin: the court granted the habeas petition, requiring notice and a hearing before detention.
The order affects Karina Albino Tito and the government respondents and their listed officers, agents, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, and persons acting with them. It requires notice and a neutral hearing before the petitioner may be detained or removed under the circumstances described in the order.
What happened
In Karina Albino Tito v. Markwayne Mullin, Karina Albino Tito challenged detention without notice or a hearing under the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protections. The petition sought release, protection from re-arrest without a hearing, and protection from removal before that hearing.
The court had previously granted temporary and preliminary relief. Both sides agreed that the earlier ruling controlled because the facts and law had not changed, so the court decided the petition without further merits briefing.
The court granted the petition and ordered that the respondents may not re-arrest, detain, or remove Karina Albino Tito without notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. If the government seeks to detain the petitioner again, it must provide at least seven days’ notice and a hearing addressing danger to the community or flight risk. The court, whose name is not shown in the opinion text, terminated the case.
The detailed version
- Tito v. Mullin · No. 3:26-cv-02178
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
On March 12, 2026, Karina Albino Tito filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition alleged detention without notice or a hearing in violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment. The petitioner also sought preliminary injunctive relief requiring release, preventing re-arrest until a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and preventing removal from the United States before the requested hearing.
The court granted a temporary restraining order on March 13, 2026, extended it on March 26, 2026, and granted a preliminary injunction on April 3, 2026.
Court’s Analysis
The petitioner later asked the court to grant the habeas petition. The parties acknowledged that the arguments were the same as those presented earlier and that the law had not changed. The respondents acknowledged that the court’s earlier reasoning would control if the court adhered to that decision. The court therefore did not deviate from its previous ruling and decided the petition without further merits briefing.
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing. At that hearing, the respondents must show by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community such that physical custody is legally justified.
Disposition
The court granted the petition. It enjoined and restrained the respondents, including their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, and persons acting with them, from re-arresting, detaining, or removing the petitioner from the United States without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
If the government seeks to detain the petitioner again, it must provide at least seven days’ notice and a pre-detention hearing. A neutral decisionmaker must consider whether the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk such that physical custody is required.
The order resolved ECF 1, and the clerk was directed to terminate the case. The opinion text does not identify the judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.