Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ramiro de Jesus Palacio Moreno, an immigration detainee held at the Golden State Annex awaiting the outcome of removal proceedings, petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. He first entered the United States in 2023 near Lukeville, Arizona, and was arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. After his arrest, he was served with a Notice to Appear, placing him in removal proceedings, and was released from custody. He later filed an asylum application and was granted work authorization by USCIS, valid through 2030. He has no criminal history.
In his petition and motion for a temporary restraining order, Palacio Moreno argued that the revocation of his prior release without any showing of changed circumstances violated his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court had previously addressed the same legal issues in several earlier orders involving other immigration detainees. On October 21, 2026, the court directed Respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted and why Petitioner should not be released based on those prior orders.
Respondents filed a timely response in which they conceded that the issues raised in the petition were not substantively distinguishable from the orders cited in the court's order to show cause. This concession effectively left the court's prior reasoning as the controlling framework for resolving the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, relying on the reasoning articulated in its prior orders. The court found that Palacio Moreno has a clear liberty interest in his continued freedom following his release from DHS custody in 2023. Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court concluded that he has a substantial private interest in maintaining his out-of-custody status, the risk of erroneous deprivation without a hearing is considerable, and the government's interest in detention is low because the effort and costs required to provide procedural safeguards are minimal.
The court ordered Respondents to immediately release Palacio Moreno from their custody. Respondents were permanently enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining him absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice describing the change of circumstances necessitating his arrest and detention, and a timely hearing. At any such hearing, the government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner shall be allowed to have his counsel present.
The court expressly noted that the order does not address the circumstances under which Respondents may re-detain Petitioner if he becomes subject to a final order of removal. The Clerk of the Court was directed to close the case and enter judgment for Petitioner, and the order resolved all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas corpus petition and ordered the immediate release of an immigration detainee whose prior release was revoked without any showing of changed circumstances.
- Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found a substantial private interest in maintaining out-of-custody status, a considerable risk of erroneous deprivation without a hearing, and a low government interest in detention given the minimal cost of procedural safeguards.
- Respondents were permanently enjoined from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner without pre-deprivation notice describing changed circumstances and a timely hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
- Respondents conceded that the issues in the petition were not substantively distinguishable from prior orders in which the court had already resolved the same legal questions in favor of detainees.
- The order expressly leaves open the circumstances under which the government may re-detain Petitioner if he becomes subject to a final order of removal.
Why It Matters
This order is part of a series of decisions by the same court holding that immigration detainees who were previously released from DHS custody cannot be re-detained without procedural due process protections under the Fifth Amendment. The court's application of the Mathews v. Eldridge framework to immigration re-detention establishes that detainees with no criminal history and valid work authorization have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their continued freedom.
The permanent injunction imposed by the court sets a high bar for any future re-detention, requiring pre-deprivation notice, a timely hearing, clear and convincing evidence of danger or flight risk, and the right to counsel. The government's concession that the case was not distinguishable from prior adverse rulings suggests that courts in this district have repeatedly addressed similar re-detention practices.