Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, identified in the order by a partial name to protect sensitive personal information, is a noncitizen who entered the United States without admission in October 2023. According to the government's own records cited by the court, Border Patrol detained him, began removal proceedings, and released him on his own recognizance. He has lived in the United States for three years and has no criminal history.
On August 16, 2026, ICE arrested him during a vehicle stop in which he was not the intended target. An administrative warrant appears to have been prepared during the stop. The court had ordered Respondent to produce any custody determinations, warrants, or notices. Respondent produced a custody determination for the 2023 detention but none for the 2026 arrest and offered no explanation, so the court reasonably inferred that none was made. Petitioner was held at California City Detention Center for two and a half months without a custody hearing. He filed a habeas petition on October 23, 2026, and sought a temporary restraining order. Respondent answered that it detains him under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), acknowledged he is entitled to a custody hearing, and said it had no objection to a bond hearing, but none had been provided or scheduled.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the petition and ordered immediate release on recognizance. Applying the two-step procedural due process framework, the court first found a protected liberty interest. Freedom from imprisonment is at the core of the Due Process Clause. The court reasoned that Petitioner's three years in the community and his 2023 release on recognizance, which it described as an implicit promise that liberty would be revoked only if he failed to meet the conditions of release, strengthened that interest. The government did not argue he violated any conditions and did not contest the interest.
At the second step, the court weighed the Mathews v. Eldridge factors. Petitioner's private interest was substantial. The risk of erroneous deprivation was considerable. He had no chance to be heard. Respondent articulated no legitimate interest in detention. The 2023 release necessarily reflected a finding that he was neither dangerous nor a flight risk, and nothing in the record showed changed circumstances. ICE also did not follow the initial custody determination procedures of section 1226(a) and its regulations. The burden of notice and a hearing was minimal, and Respondent claimed none. The court concluded that pre-deprivation notice and a custody hearing were required. Respondent identified no special case justifying post-deprivation process alone, and no post-deprivation hearing had been provided or scheduled in two and a half months. The detention therefore violated the Fifth Amendment.
Respondent must release Petitioner, return his documents and possessions, and file a notice of compliance within two court days. While Petitioner is subject to section 1226(a), Respondent is enjoined from re-arresting or re-detaining him without at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring appearance outweighs his liberty interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk, and Petitioner may have counsel present. If a final and executable removal order issues, the government must give seven days' notice, counted from when the order becomes final and executable, before executing it and detaining him. The TRO motion was denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Release on recognizance and years spent in the community supported a protected liberty interest that the court treated as strengthening over time, and due process applies even if the person is removable.
- When the government produces no initial custody determination after a court order requiring one and gives no explanation, the court may reasonably infer that none was made.
- Acknowledging entitlement to a bond hearing does not cure a violation when no hearing is provided or scheduled for two and a half months.
- The re-detention injunction applies only while Petitioner is subject to section 1226(a), and it sets notice, hearing, burden of proof, and counsel requirements.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order in a single habeas case. It binds only the parties and has no precedential force for other courts, though it applies circuit due process authority and follows other decisions from the same district. It shows how a court may apply Mathews to a person re-detained after an earlier release on recognizance.
The order does not decide removability or any claim for relief from removal. The government may seek re-detention in the future if it satisfies the stated conditions.