Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Milton Martinez Diaz, an immigration detainee held at the California City Immigration Processing Center, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under No. 1:26-cv-08557-DJC-CSK. The release order is dated October 25, 2026, and was filed on October 26, 2026. The court had previously addressed the legal issues raised in the petition in two earlier decisions from the same district, Morillo v. Albarran, 2025 WL 3190899 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025), and E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, 2025 WL 3707140 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), both of which arose from habeas petitions filed by immigration detainees in the Eastern District of California.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court directed respondents to file a return showing cause why the court should not grant the writ and order Diaz's release (ECF No. 4). In light of the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), respondents conceded that binding precedent establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing (ECF No. 5). That concession left the timing of the hearing, not its existence, as the live dispute. The court then observed that the lengthy delay in providing the statutorily mandated bond hearing violates the petitioner's due process rights and justifies release.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) expressly 'for the reasons stated in those prior orders' — the Morillo and E.L.D.M. decisions — rather than on a new, independent rationale. The order separately states that the lengthy delay in providing the statutorily mandated bond hearing violates the petitioner's due process rights and justifies release, but the operative grant of the writ rests on the reasoning already developed in the court's earlier decisions addressing the same legal issues.
The court ordered respondents to immediately release Diaz from their custody and barred them from imposing any additional restrictions unless that is determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. If the government seeks to re-detain him, it must provide no less than seven days' notice and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which his eligibility for bond must be considered.
The order expressly does not address the circumstances in which respondents may detain Diaz if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. Respondents must file a status report within five days confirming his release, and the Clerk of the Court must serve the California City Detention Facility with a copy of the order, close the case, and enter judgment for the petitioner; the order resolves all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration detainee's statutory right to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is established by binding Ninth Circuit precedent and was conceded by the government in this case.
- The court stated that a lengthy delay in providing the statutorily mandated bond hearing violates due process and justifies release.
- The habeas petition was granted for the reasons stated in the court's prior orders, not on a new rationale announced in this release order.
- Any government effort to re-detain the released petitioner requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The order leaves open detention after an executable final order of removal and directs a five-day status report, service on the detention facility, case closure, and judgment for the petitioner.
Why It Matters
The order applies binding Ninth Circuit precedent to a concrete due-process problem: prolonged immigration detention without a timely bond hearing. It shows that a conceded statutory right is not enough where government delay effectively nullifies the hearing, and it grounds the petitioner's release in the reasoning of the district's prior detainee decisions rather than a new analysis. By tying the grant to those prior orders, the court signaled that the legal framework for prolonged-detention due-process claims in this district is settled.
The conditions on any future re-detention — advance notice and a hearing before a neutral arbiter — give the release practical force, while the express reservation on executable final removal orders keeps that separate question open for future litigation. The five-day status report and closure of the case confirm that the release is final and immediately effective.