Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jesus Avalos Avila, proceeding without a lawyer, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus against respondent Christopher Chestnut. He challenged his mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as a violation of due process. An immigration court ordered him removed on May 13, 2025, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal on October 10, 2025, making the removal order administratively final. He remained in ICE custody while the government worked to carry out removal.
Avalos Avila sought review in the court of appeals. That court granted a stay of removal on January 29, 2026, denied his petition for review on June 24, 2026, and issued its formal mandate on October 14, 2026. He filed this habeas petition on July 6, 2026, while the stay remained in effect. He also filed a separate motion asking the district court to appoint counsel.
The October 19, 2026 filing in the Eastern District of California is both an order and findings and recommendations, not a final district-judge judgment on the habeas petition. The magistrate judge resolved the counsel motion by order, but submitted the proposed denial of the petition and case closure to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The document allows written objections within fourteen days of service and responses within fourteen days of service of objections.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge reasoned that habeas relief is available when custody violates the Constitution or federal law and that district-court habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention. Applying the removal-period rules, he found that the court of appeals' stay lasted from January 29, 2026, until issuance of the mandate on October 14, 2026. Relying on Mariscal-Sandoval v. Ashcroft for the proposition that a stay is not dissolved until the mandate issues, he treated the mandate as the court of appeals' final order and the event that started the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A).
Because that statutory period had just begun, the magistrate judge concluded that Avalos Avila's mandatory detention was authorized by § 1231(a)(2). He therefore recommended denying the habeas petition without prejudice rather than ordering release. The recommendation expressly contemplated lawful removal as soon as practicable, but it did not hold that detention could continue indefinitely. If removal does not occur within the 90-day period, the filing says Avalos Avila may submit a new petition challenging his detention and addressing whether removal is reasonably foreseeable.
The court separately denied the motion for appointment of counsel. It explained that there is no absolute right to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings and that 18 U.S.C. § 3006A permits appointment when the interests of justice require it. Finding that standard unmet at the present time, the magistrate judge denied the motion. The recommendations also asked that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close the case, but those steps remained recommendations subject to district-judge review; the filing itself did not report adoption or entry of final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge treated issuance of the appellate mandate on October 14, 2026, rather than the earlier denial of review, as the event that dissolved the removal stay and began the 90-day removal period.
- The petition was recommended for denial without prejudice because detention during that period was found to be authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), not because every possible future detention challenge had been resolved.
- The recommendation preserves an opportunity to file a new petition if removal does not occur within 90 days, with the new challenge addressing whether removal remains reasonably foreseeable.
- The only relief directly ordered in this filing was denial of appointed counsel; denial of habeas relief, entry of judgment, and case closure were recommendations for the assigned district judge.
- Parties were given fourteen days after service to object, and the filing warned that failing to object on time could waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the end of judicial review from the start of the statutory removal clock. Although the court of appeals denied Avalos Avila's petition in June, the magistrate judge focused on the October mandate because the stay remained operative until then. That timing drove the conclusion that his detention fell within § 1231's authorized removal period when the findings and recommendations issued five days later.
The without-prejudice recommendation also leaves a defined issue open rather than forecasting the outcome of prolonged detention. It identifies a potential later challenge based on nonremoval beyond the statutory period and reasonable foreseeability, while making no finding that such detention would be lawful or unlawful. Readers should likewise distinguish the magistrate judge's proposed habeas disposition from a final judgment: the document supplies the recommendation and objection procedure, but no subsequent district-judge action is included in this source.