Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On September 23, 2026, Manuel Aguirre-Flores filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the California City Detention Facility.Concurrently, he filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis, for a temporary restraining order, and to appoint counsel.The court set a briefing schedule on September 25, 2026, directing the respondent to address whether any law or fact distinguished the case from prior decisions involving prolonged detention.
On September 28, 2026, the respondent filed an opposition to the temporary restraining order, stating that Aguirre-Flores was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C.§ 1226(a) and was entitled to seek a custody redetermination hearing.The respondent attached a Form I-213 indicating Aguirre-Flores was previously detained on August 17, 2018, and re-detained on August 10, 2026.The respondent did not oppose the court deciding the case on the merits based on the current briefing.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, incorporating the reasoning from its prior decision in Ayala Cajina v.Wofford, No.1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D.Cal.Nov.
21, 2025).The court ordered the respondent to immediately release Aguirre-Flores on the same conditions applicable prior to his re-detention.The court further enjoined and restrained the respondent from re-detaining the petitioner absent exigent circumstances without providing notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before an immigration judge, at which the government must bear the burden of justifying detention by clear and convincing evidence.The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.The motions for a temporary restraining order and to appoint counsel were denied as moot.The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief to a noncitizen re-detained by ICE after a prior period of detention, relying on precedent requiring a bond hearing for prolonged detention.
- The respondent conceded the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and did not oppose a merits ruling on the existing record.
- The release order reinstates the petitioner’s pre-re-detention conditions of supervision.
- The injunction bars future re-detention without a pre-deprivation bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
- The motions for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel were denied as moot following the grant of habeas relief.
Why It Matters
This order applies the Eastern District of California’s established precedent in Ayala Cajina to a factually similar case involving re-detention after a prior release.It reinforces the requirement that the government provide a prompt bond hearing with the burden of proof on the government before prolonging detention under § 1226(a), particularly where an individual has been previously released on conditions.The decision grants immediate release and imposes a prospective injunction against re-detention without due process protections, contributing to a line of district court decisions limiting prolonged immigration detention without individualized bond hearings.
The remedy restored the conditions that existed before the August 2026 re-detention.It did not foreclose detention altogether: exigent circumstances remained an exception, and otherwise the government could proceed after notice and a hearing at which it carried the clear-and-convincing burden.The court also granted in forma pauperis status, while denying the temporary-restraint and counsel motions as moot because final habeas relief supplied the operative remedy.