Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jefferson Contreras M., an immigration detainee, filed his first habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 5, 2026, in a related case (1:26-cv-03477-JLT-EGC). On May 13, 2026, the court granted that petition and ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner a substantive bond hearing.
Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on May 27, 2026, at which the immigration judge denied release after finding Petitioner a danger to the public. On June 5, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant second petition seeking immediate release. Respondents responded on June 10, 2026, arguing the petition should be dismissed because Petitioner had already received the process due.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the petition. The record shows Petitioner was detained on March 2, 2026, and received a bond hearing under § 1226(a) at which the IJ denied bond based on danger to the community. Relying on Rodriguez Diaz v.
Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022), the court held that due process does not require a second bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence for a § 1226(a) detainee, even after prolonged detention. The court found Petitioner failed to distinguish his case from Rodriguez Diaz and concluded that § 1226(a)’s post-detention bond procedures facially satisfy due process. The petition is recommended for denial.
Key Takeaways
- A § 1226(a) detainee who has received a bond hearing before an immigration judge has received constitutionally adequate process, even if the IJ denied bond based on danger to the community.
- Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland forecloses a facial due process challenge to § 1226(a)’s bond procedures and does not require a second hearing with a heightened government burden absent a successful as-applied challenge.
- The petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that his specific circumstances distinguish his case from Rodriguez Diaz to prevail on an as-applied due process challenge.
- The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is subject to a 14-day objection period before the assigned District Judge; failure to object may waive appellate rights.
- The recommendation is not a final, appealable order; any appeal must await the District Court’s judgment.
Why It Matters
This Findings and Recommendation applies Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Diaz to reject a habeas petitioner’s claim that prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) requires a second bond hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. It reinforces that § 1226(a)’s existing bond hearing framework facially satisfies due process and that as-applied challenges require a fact-specific showing distinguishable from Rodriguez Diaz. The decision underscores the procedural hurdle for immigration detainees seeking release via habeas after receiving an initial bond hearing, even where detention continues for months. The procedural posture matters.
This is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final judgment, and the parties had fourteen days after service to object. The recommendation also does not hold that every lengthy Section 1226(a) detention is necessarily valid. It relies on the absence of facts distinguishing this detainee’s situation from controlling Ninth Circuit precedent after he received the hearing previously ordered in his first habeas case. A practitioner challenging continued detention after an initial hearing therefore needs a developed as-applied theory tied to the particular duration, procedures, or changed circumstances, rather than a general demand for a second hearing with a different burden.