Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adadagro Vernon Forbes, a Bahamian citizen proceeding without counsel, was admitted to the United States around September 12, 2018 on a B2 visitor visa that authorized him to stay until March 11, 2019. He overstayed. On March 31, 2026, Florida local law enforcement arrested him on a battery charge, and a state judge ordered him released at arraignment on April 1. Local law enforcement contacted ICE that day, and the Department of Homeland Security made an initial custody determination. ICE detained him on April 7, 2026. The state case was dismissed on May 22, and the petition states he has no criminal history. He has since been moved among several detention facilities.
Forbes requested a custody redetermination (bond) hearing before an immigration judge, and it was set for August 17, 2026. He does not dispute that scheduling but argues it should have happened earlier. On August 3, 2026, he filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting a Fifth Amendment procedural due process violation, together with a motion to appoint counsel. Respondents opposed on August 12, and his reply was filed August 21, though it is signed and dated August 17.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends that the district judge deny the petition. Both sides agreed Forbes is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Citing Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, the court explained that this provision supplies an initial custody determination and an initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with the opportunity for counsel, presentation of evidence, appeal, and a new hearing if circumstances materially change. The court found that the record shows DHS made its initial determination on April 1, 2026, gave notice, granted the hearing request, and scheduled the hearing for August 17. It agreed with respondents that, because the hearing was already scheduled, Forbes had received the process due.
The order itself, as distinct from the recommendation, denied the motion for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court noted there is no absolute right to counsel in habeas proceedings and that counsel may be appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A when the interests of justice require, which it found not to be the case here. It also recommended that the Clerk enter judgment for respondents and close the case. Parties have fourteen days to file objections and seven days to respond, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Several matters remain open. The recommendations are not a final judgment until the district judge acts. The record does not show the result of the August 17 hearing, and the court noted only that a federal detainee locator returned no result, which may indicate release.
Key Takeaways
- Where the parties agree detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), this court treated a scheduled immigration judge bond hearing as the process due, without requiring that it occur sooner.
- The court relied on the record of an April 1 initial custody determination with notice and a granted hearing request to find that § 1226(a) procedures were followed.
- The denial of appointed counsel is an order without prejudice, so the request may be renewed, while the denial of the petition is only a recommendation.
- Objections are due within fourteen days, and failure to file them may waive the right to appeal.
- The outcome of the bond hearing is not in the record, and possible release was inferred only from a detainee locator result.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported magistrate judge recommendation, not a final ruling, so it has only persuasive value. It reflects one Eastern District of California approach, following Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland and the district court decision in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, that a petitioner detained under § 1226(a) who already has a bond hearing set has not been denied due process.
Its reach is narrow. The court did not conduct a detailed analysis of the length of pre-hearing detention, which ran from April 7 to the scheduled August 17 hearing, and did not address detention under other statutes. Whether the hearing occurred, and whether the district judge adopts the recommendation, remain open.