Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Raul Torres Pineda, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States around 2022 without inspection. He was arrested during a Drug Enforcement Administration sweep in downtown San Francisco, but the United States Attorney's Office declined to prosecute him. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took custody of him on October 2, 2025 and placed him in removal proceedings for being present without admission or parole. He remained detained at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, with his next immigration hearing scheduled for November 23, 2026.
On October 4, 2026, Torres Pineda filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention without an individualized bond hearing as a violation of Fifth Amendment due process. He also stated that he feared return to Honduras because of his sexual orientation. The warden argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governed, while acknowledging that the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision made § 1226(a) applicable instead. The warden also sought dismissal because Torres Pineda had not requested a bond hearing and therefore had not exhausted administrative remedies.
The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The resulting findings and recommendations addressed the governing detention statute, exhaustion, the constitutional consequences of the missing custody procedures, and the appropriate habeas remedy. They were recommendations to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment granting release.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that exhaustion should be waived. Although the warden blamed Torres Pineda for not obtaining a bond hearing, the record contained no evidence that he received notice of his right to seek custody redetermination before an immigration judge. In particular, there was no indication that the government completed and served Form I-286, which would have enabled that request. The court reasoned that a detainee cannot be expected to pursue an administrative remedy he does not know exists.
The parties agreed that § 1226(a) governed the detention. That statute supplies substantial procedural protections, including an initial custody redetermination before an immigration judge and further bond hearings after material changes in circumstances. The magistrate judge found that Torres Pineda had been detained for more than a year without any bond hearing assessing dangerousness or flight risk. Denying him those statutory protections for that period constituted a separate procedural due-process violation, even though the governing statute itself provided mechanisms for review.
Because federal courts have flexibility in fashioning habeas relief, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition and ordering immediate release, return of Torres Pineda's documents and possessions, and service of any release order on Mesa Verde. If the government sought to detain him again, it would have to give at least seven days' notice and provide an immigration-judge bond hearing at which it proved flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. The recommendations expressly left open detention after an executable final removal order with notice. They also directed entry of judgment and case closure if adopted, and set a three-day objection period because of the relief's urgency and the completed written briefing.
Key Takeaways
- The warden's exhaustion defense failed because the record did not show that Torres Pineda received notice of the custody-redetermination process he supposedly had to invoke.
- The magistrate judge treated the year-long denial of procedures already available under § 1226(a) as a procedural due-process violation, rather than requiring a new constitutional bond-hearing framework.
- The recommended remedy was immediate release, not merely an order directing a delayed bond hearing.
- Any proposed re-detention would require seven days' notice and a bond hearing at which the government would bear a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden.
- The document did not finally resolve detention following an executable final removal order, and its recommendations remained subject to district-judge review and written objections.
Why It Matters
The recommendations connect notice and exhaustion: when the government does not show that a detainee was told how to seek custody review, it cannot rely on the detainee's failure to use that process to defeat habeas review. They also emphasize that statutory custody protections can lose their constitutional value when a detainee is left without meaningful access to them for an extended period.
The proposed relief is consequential but should not be overstated. Immediate release, restrictions on re-detention, judgment, and closure were recommendations, not an entered final order. The express reservation concerning an executable final removal order also limits the decision's scope, while the shortened objection period reflects the court's concern that continued detention made prompt district-court action necessary.