Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Leyver Sanchez Lopez, an immigration detainee, petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. The case was docketed as No. 1:26-cv-08262-DJC-JDP, and the respondent was the warden of the California City Immigration Processing Center. The court stated that it had previously addressed the legal issues raised by the petition in Morillo v. Albarran and E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, two earlier decisions from the same district.
Acting under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court directed Respondents to file a return showing cause why the court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus and order Petitioner's release on the same basis. The Government did not file a response as ordered. The court issued another order again directing the Government to file a response and warning that failure to file a response would be treated as non-opposition to the Court granting the Petition. To date, no response has been filed. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock had clarified the statutory framework governing bond hearings for immigration detainees.
The Court’s Holding
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, which made clear that Petitioner has a statutory right to a bond hearing. The court held that the lengthy delay in providing the statutorily mandated bond hearing violates Petitioner's due process rights and justifies release. Accordingly, the court ordered that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED for the reasons stated in those prior orders, expressly incorporating its earlier rulings in Morillo and E.L.D.M., which had addressed the same legal issues.
The operative order required Respondents to immediately release Petitioner Jose Leyver Sanchez Lopez from their custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on Petitioner, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. Respondents shall file a status report within five (5) days confirming Petitioner's release. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve California City Detention Facility with a copy of this Order and to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner. This Order resolves all pending motions. The court expressly stated that This Order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas petition and ordered Sanchez Lopez's immediate release from immigration custody.
- It held that the lengthy delay in providing a statutorily mandated bond hearing violated due process and justified release.
- The government had failed to respond despite two court directives and an express warning that its silence would be treated as non-opposition.
- Any effort to re-detain Sanchez Lopez requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The order expressly left open the circumstances in which respondents may detain him if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the court's prior detention rulings and the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision to order release where a detainee has waited an extended period for a required bond hearing. Its release conditions also specify procedural protections against renewed detention, while preserving a distinct question concerning detention after an executable final removal order.
The order illustrates the consequences of the government's failure to respond to a show-cause directive in a habeas proceeding, as the court treated the silence as non-opposition and proceeded to grant the petition. The procedural safeguards imposed on any future re-detention reflect the court's concern that the statutory bond hearing right be honored before any renewed deprivation of liberty.