Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Erick Denilson Calderon Herrarte is an immigration detainee who filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 for findings and recommendations.
On October 1, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be granted in part and that the petitioner be provided with a bond hearing within fourteen days. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that objections were due within fourteen days of service. No objections were filed by either party.
The Court’s Holding
The district court reviewed the matter de novo in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After carefully reviewing the file, the court concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. The court agreed that, under the circumstances presented, due process requires a new bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
The court relied on Singh v. Chestnut, No. 1:26CV00983-KES-EPG, 2026 WL 936917 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2026), which held that where the government has previously determined that a noncitizen should be released because he did not pose a flight risk or danger, the government must bear the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant his present detention. The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full, granted the petition in part, and ordered the respondent to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen days that complies with the requirements of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011).
The court's order specified that at the bond hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond, and that the immigration judge should consider the petitioner's financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release if he is found not to be a danger and not so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond. The court further ordered that the respondent immediately provide the petitioner with a copy of the order, give him 72 hours' notice before the hearing in a language he can understand, and release him if the bond hearing is not held within fourteen days. The petitioner may be represented by an attorney, and the deadline may be extended at his request to obtain counsel. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate any pending motions, close the case, and enter judgment for the petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after conducting de novo review and receiving no objections from either party.
- The court granted the § 2241 habeas petition in part and ordered a new bond hearing within fourteen days at which the government bears the burden of proof.
- The government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify continued detention without bond.
- The immigration judge must consider the petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release when setting bond.
- If the respondent fails to provide the bond hearing within fourteen days, the petitioner must be released from custody.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the due process protections afforded to immigration detainees who have previously been found eligible for release. By placing the burden on the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, the court applied the Ninth Circuit's framework from Singh v. Holder to ensure that detention decisions are subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny.
The order also demonstrates the practical consequences of failing to comply with court-ordered bond hearings: the petitioner must be released if the hearing is not held within the specified timeframe. This remedy provides a concrete enforcement mechanism for detainees challenging prolonged immigration detention under § 2241.