Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
J.L.C., a native of Honduras, entered the United States in 2019, was encountered near the border, and was released on his own recognizance. He was ordered removed on March 13, 2020 and did not appeal, attributing that to pandemic disruption. He lived in Richmond, California, with his partner and four children and was preparing to seek reopening of removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel. On October 8, 2026, immigration authorities detained him while he was driving his children to school; according to the petition, they showed no warrant, did not explain the detention, and provided no pre-deprivation process.
On October 18, 2026, J.L.C. filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release, protection against re-detention without pre-deprivation process, and an injunction against transfer out of the Eastern District of California. He also moved to proceed under a pseudonym because of his asylum claim and fear of harm in Honduras; Respondents did not oppose. Respondents argued the detention was lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), not unconstitutionally prolonged, and that removal was imminent, relying on a removal warrant and the absence of a formal supervision order. Neither party opposed a direct merits ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The court accepted that the final removal order placed the detention under § 1231(a)(6) but rejected the argument that the absence of a formal supervision order eliminated required procedures. Relying principally on Orellano v. Hernandez, it treated the government's decision not to detain a person during the removal period as an implicit release on supervision, so later detention required the process in 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. The court distinguished its own earlier delayed-detention decisions, which involved § 1226(a) rather than § 1231(a).
The court calculated that J.L.C.'s removal order became administratively final around April 12, 2020, and the three-month removal period ended around July 12, 2020. Respondents knew of his presence but elected not to detain him then, so his release was necessarily implied and the pre-deprivation process applied before any re-detention. Because Respondents neither alleged nor documented compliance, the court found violations of his statutory and due-process rights. It granted the habeas petition and temporary restraining order, ordered immediate release, barred additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future custody hearing found them necessary, required return of his documents, and prohibited re-arrest or re-detention absent constitutional compliance, including strict compliance with §§ 241.4 and 241.13.
The court separately granted the unopposed pseudonym motion, finding the severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of J.L.C.'s fear of retaliation outweighed prejudice to Respondents and the public interest. It directed the Clerk to serve the order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, enter judgment for J.L.C., and close the case. The order did not decide whether reopening would succeed or bar future detention generally; it prescribed the process required before any re-detention.
Key Takeaways
- A final removal order did not eliminate the need for pre-deprivation procedures when the government had allowed years to pass without detaining J.L.C. during the removal period.
- The court treated the government's decision not to detain him during that period as an implicit release, triggering the protections in 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13.
- Respondents' removal warrant and assertion that J.L.C. was not formally supervised did not establish compliance with the required custody procedures.
- The judgment required immediate release and return of J.L.C.'s property, while allowing future restrictions only if a future custody hearing determined they were necessary.
- Any re-arrest or re-detention was barred absent constitutional compliance, including strict adherence to the specified regulations.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the implicit-release reasoning of Orellano and Mekolli to a long-delayed detention in the Eastern District of California. Its practical focus is the government's documented compliance with custody procedures, rather than the existence of a final removal order alone. The court's remedy released J.L.C. without resolving his proposed reopening effort and left open the possibility of later detention if the required constitutional and regulatory process is provided.