Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ruddy De Jesus C.G., an immigration detainee represented by counsel, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against respondent Christopher Chestnut. The Eastern District of California referred the matter to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 29, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, served them on all parties, and gave notice that objections were due within three days.
Respondents filed objections stating that, to preserve the right to appeal, they generally objected to the findings and recommendation for reasons stated in their prior pleadings. The district court then conducted de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. After reviewing the entire file, the court found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis. The release order itself adopted those recommendations in full but did not reproduce their underlying reasoning.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered respondents to immediately release Ruddy De Jesus C.G. from custody and to impose no additional restriction unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. At release, respondents must return all of his documents and possessions and file a notice of compliance within two court days.
The court also enjoined respondents from re-detaining the petitioner while he is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections. Those protections include at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, where the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring appearance at future immigration proceedings outweighs the petitioner's constitutionally protected interest in freedom from detention, such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that risk. The order cited Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions and provided that the petitioner may have counsel present at any such hearing.
If the petitioner becomes subject to a final and executable removal order, the government must give at least seven days' notice, counted from the date the order becomes final and executable, of any intent to execute it and detain him. The court denied the separate motion for immediate release as moot. It directed the clerk to serve the order on the California City Immigration Processing Center, enter judgment for the petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court granted the § 2241 habeas petition after de novo review and adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full.
- Respondents were ordered to release the petitioner immediately, return his documents and possessions, and file a compliance notice within two court days.
- Any re-detention while the petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) requires the notice, hearing, neutral factfinder, clear-and-convincing-evidence, and counsel protections specified in the order.
- A final and executable removal order triggers a separate requirement of at least seven days' notice before the government executes the order and detains the petitioner.
- The separate immediate-release motion was denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case.
Why It Matters
The order provides a concrete release remedy and detailed conditions governing any future detention, rather than merely remanding for further proceedings. Its requirements address notice, hearing procedures, the government's burden, consideration of alternatives to detention, and access to counsel.
Because the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full without setting out their analysis in this order, the release order establishes the disposition and operative protections but does not independently supply the complete reasoning behind them. The order also leaves any future custody determination to the required hearing process and addresses future execution of a removal order only through the stated notice requirement.