Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eliseo Martin Ramirez Perez petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondents were Markwayne Mullin and others. The case was docketed as No. 5:26-cv-06565-SK, and the court addressed the petition together with a separate motion for a temporary restraining order.
The petition sought a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days. The court granted the petition only to that extent, rather than ordering an unrestricted release or deciding every possible issue concerning Perez's detention. It also denied the temporary-restraining-order motion as moot and stated that judgment would be entered accordingly.
The order was dated November 4, 2026, and signed by Hon. Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge. Its operative directive gave the government a choice within the seven-day period: provide the specified custody redetermination hearing or release Perez from ICE custody. The court grounded its reasoning in Ninth Circuit authority describing the bond standard for § 1226(a) detainees.
The Court’s Holding
The court required Perez's release from ICE custody no later than seven days after the order unless he received a custody redetermination hearing under § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1). It cited Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock for the rule that a § 1226(a) detainee will be released on bond if he demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. That description concerned the bond determination; the order itself did not find that Perez had already satisfied that standard.
The court also preserved the immigration judge's ordinary discretion to continue the hearing for a reasonable period upon a valid showing of good cause. Examples included a request by Perez to secure the appearance of immigration counsel or to marshal documentary evidence for the hearing, with a citation to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. Thus, the seven-day directive coexisted with a recognized regulatory basis for a justified continuance.
Finally, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its judgment, subject to the limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). It cited Gomez v. Blanche and Fan v. Bondi in connection with that retention of enforcement jurisdiction. The order did not resolve the merits of any future bond application or eliminate the statutory limitation it expressly acknowledged.
Key Takeaways
- Perez's § 2241 petition was granted only to the extent that it requested a § 1226(a) bond hearing within seven days.
- The government must provide the specified custody redetermination hearing within that period or release Perez from ICE custody.
- The court described the detainee's bond burden as proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community, citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- An immigration judge retains ordinary discretion to continue the hearing for good cause, including efforts to obtain counsel or assemble documentary evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
- The temporary restraining order was denied as moot, and the court retained enforcement jurisdiction subject to the limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
Why It Matters
The order provides an immediate procedural remedy focused on obtaining a custody redetermination hearing, backed by a release requirement if that hearing is not provided within seven days. It does not itself order bond, decide that Perez is entitled to release after a hearing, or remove the immigration judge's ordinary authority over hearing logistics.
The decision also distinguishes prompt access to the hearing process from the substantive bond determination. Its express retention of jurisdiction supplies an enforcement mechanism for the judgment, while the reference to § 1226(e) makes clear that this authority remains subject to statutory limits.