Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jefferson Jose Amaya Melgar, a native of Honduras who entered the United States on or about June 17, 2010, as a lawful permanent resident, was taken into immigration custody on July 21, 2026, after serving a six-year Florida prison sentence. On July 16, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a Notice to Appear charging him with removability under INA section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an aggravated felon, alleging convictions on September 27, 2021, of three counts of robbery with firearm or deadly weapon and one count of shooting at, within, or into a building. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights and seeking release from custody or, alternatively, a bond hearing. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis was also before the court.
Respondent Christopher Chestnut moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Amaya Melgar was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) because of his 2021 convictions. Petitioner did not oppose the motion, and the deadline to do so expired. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney by operation of Local Rule 302(c)(17) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge assumed without deciding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(B) supplied the authority for the detention, noting that the petitioner did not dispute his convictions or contend that he was misclassified under the statute. The court observed that a detainee who wishes to challenge whether his convictions subject him to mandatory detention may request a Joseph hearing before an immigration judge under Matter of Joseph, but the respondent asserted that the petitioner had never sought one. The court therefore evaluated the due process challenge on the assumption that mandatory detention applied.
On the due process claim, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing under § 1226(c) and that his detention had not become unconstitutionally prolonged. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing framework, the court found that the approximately three-month detention fell well within the timeframe the Supreme Court contemplated in Demore v. Kim, that nothing in the record suggested the removal proceedings were stalled, that a merits hearing was unavailable, or that the remaining detention was indefinite, and that the government's interests in ensuring appearance at removal proceedings and protecting the public were substantial given the nature of the convictions. The court concluded that the detention did not violate due process.
The court ordered that the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. It recommended that the habeas petition be denied without prejudice, that the respondent's motion to dismiss be denied as moot, and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to close the case. The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with objections due within fourteen days and any response due within seven days after service of the objections.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) who does not dispute the underlying convictions or claim misclassification is unlikely to obtain habeas relief based on a general due process challenge.
- Detainees who believe they are not covered by mandatory detention may request a Joseph hearing before an immigration judge rather than pursuing a federal habeas petition.
- Approximately three months of detention during active removal proceedings is well within the timeframe the Supreme Court has treated as constitutionally permissible under Demore v. Kim.
- Under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the government's interests in ensuring appearance at removal proceedings and protecting the public weigh heavily against release when the detainee has serious criminal convictions.
- Failure to file objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations within fourteen days may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
This recommendation illustrates how federal courts in the Eastern District of California handle habeas petitions from immigration detainees subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c). It underscores that general due process challenges to short-term detention during pending removal proceedings face steep odds, particularly when the petitioner has not pursued available administrative remedies such as a Joseph hearing to contest the mandatory detention classification.
The order also demonstrates the procedural posture of magistrate judge recommendations in habeas cases: the magistrate judge may grant certain relief directly, such as in forma pauperis status, while only recommending disposition of the underlying petition to the assigned district judge. The recommended denial is without prejudice, preserving the petitioner's ability to pursue a Joseph hearing or other administrative remedies before the immigration court.