Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Abel Camilo Diaz Morales, a Cuban national who entered the United States in February 2022, has pending applications for asylum and adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He suffers from Tourette syndrome, Cyclothymic Disorder, anxiety, depression, and mood instability requiring ongoing treatment. In February 2025, he was arrested in Miami on charges including Burglary with Assault and Assault with a Deadly Weapon; the burglary charges were dropped, but he was convicted of battery and sentenced to time served. Upon release from criminal custody on December 23, 2025, ICE took him into custody pursuant to a detainer. He was transferred through multiple facilities, ultimately arriving at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California. Petitioner alleges these transfers disrupted his neurological and psychiatric care. On June 22, 2026, an Immigration Judge denied his request for custody redetermination for lack of jurisdiction.
On July 23, 2026, his mother, Tamara Marta D.M., filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as next friend, asserting his detention violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Petitioner subsequently elected to proceed pro se. Respondents acknowledged in their opposition that Petitioner is eligible for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In September 2026, Petitioner was transferred to Larkin Behavioral Health Services in Miami for medical treatment; his mother filed emergency motions alleging forced medication and non-consensual chemical isolation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court withdrew the reference to the Magistrate Judge and granted the habeas petition in part. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention, not mandatory detention provisions. While acknowledging the government's legitimate interest in detention given the battery conviction, the Court ordered that if and when Petitioner is transferred back into ICE custody, Respondents must provide a prompt, individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within 14 days. At that hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community, consistent with Singh v.
Holder and Hernandez v. Sessions. The Court declined to adjudicate Petitioner's conditions-of-confinement claims regarding forced medication and transfer to a medical facility, ruling such claims must be brought in a Bivens action rather than via habeas corpus, citing Hernandez v. Lundy and the Supreme Court's reservation in Bell v. Wolfish. The case was closed.
Key Takeaways
- The Court applied Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to confirm that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs detention for arriving aliens with pending adjustment applications, entitling them to bond hearings.
- The government bears the burden of proving flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence at the bond hearing, per Singh v. Holder.
- Conditions-of-confinement claims—including allegations of forced medication and involuntary transfer to a psychiatric facility—are not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas petition in this district and must be pursued via Bivens.
- The Court retained jurisdiction despite Petitioner's temporary absence from ICE custody because Respondents did not dispute jurisdiction and presumably intend to resume custody.
- The order mandates specific procedural safeguards: 72-hour notice, right to counsel, right to appear, and recording of the bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the Eastern District of California's consistent application of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to require individualized bond hearings under § 1226(a) for arriving aliens with pending adjustment applications, rejecting mandatory detention under § 1225(b). It clarifies the procedural requirements for such hearings, including the government's burden of proof and the immigration judge's obligation to consider financial circumstances and alternatives to detention.
The decision also delineates the boundary between habeas corpus challenges to the fact or duration of detention and conditions-of-confinement claims, directing the latter to Bivens actions—a distinction the Ninth Circuit has not definitively resolved for federal prisoners. The ruling provides a template for prompt post-deprivation process when detainees are shuttled between criminal, immigration, and medical custody.