Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Richard Hernandez Segovia, a federal immigration detainee proceeding without counsel, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 22, 2026, while held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the California City Detention Facility. Immigration authorities encountered him when he entered the United States on August 22, 2022. He was released and directed to report under the Alternatives to Detention program, but the Form I-213 submitted by Respondents says he was terminated from that program in September 2022 because he was no longer required to participate. The record does not document any conditions imposed afterward. Before his August 29, 2026 re-detention, he had no criminal history, had applied for asylum, and held work authorization through 2028.
Respondents' documents describe the re-detention inconsistently. A Park Police incident report states that an officer found Petitioner illegally parked on a motorcycle in Washington, D.C., confirmed he lacked a motorcycle endorsement, arrested him, and later learned from ICE that he was wanted for immigration purposes. The I-213 instead states that the officer contacted ICE to verify the identity of a person stopped for an illegal U-turn who did not speak English. On October 15, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition. Respondents objected, repeating their argument that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and the district judge reviewed the matter de novo.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition, agreeing that Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief on his due process claim and that immediate release is the appropriate remedy. After reviewing Respondents' objections, the court found the findings supported by the record and proper analysis. The order rests on due process and does not separately analyze § 1225(b).
Quoting the findings, the court stated that nothing in the record suggested the government reasonably had an urgent need to arrest Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing. It described the prevailing rule as requiring such a hearing, citing Zinermon v. Burch, and recognized a narrow exception where it is at least arguable that notice and a hearing would have been impracticable or would have prompted flight. Given his lack of criminal history and the misdemeanor infraction that led to his arrest, the court found it not objectively reasonable to conclude that a hearing would have been impractical or encouraged flight. It did not decide which of Respondents' two accounts of the arrest is accurate.
The order directs immediate release and delivery of a copy of the order to Petitioner. Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining him unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he is a flight risk or danger to the community. A footnote adds that if legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without advance notice, a post-deprivation hearing must be provided within seven days, and that if Petitioner becomes subject to a final removal order of which he receives notice, Respondents may detain him solely to execute removal but must provide a bond hearing within the legally required time. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated a pre-deprivation hearing as the default requirement before re-detaining a noncitizen released into the community, citing Zinermon v. Burch.
- The exception for impracticability or flight was applied narrowly, and the court found nothing in the record showing an urgent need to act without a hearing.
- Petitioner's lack of criminal history and the minor misdemeanor infraction behind his arrest were central to rejecting any claim of flight risk or impracticability.
- This is a final order granting the petition, not a mere recommendation, and it pairs release with an injunction conditioning any re-detention on a clear-and-convincing showing at a bond hearing.
- The order does not separately analyze the § 1225(b) mandatory-detention theory, and it leaves limited paths to detention through a hearing within seven days of a justified no-notice arrest or a final removal order.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order in a single-petitioner habeas case, and its key reasoning is quoted from the magistrate judge's findings, so it is persuasive rather than binding authority. Its facts are specific: a person released years earlier, with no criminal record, an asylum application, and work authorization, arrested over a minor traffic matter. The court cited other district decisions applying the same narrow exception, including Martinez Hernandez v. Andrews, Guillermo M. R. v. Kaiser, and O.A.C.C. v. Wofford.
The order shows a court pairing release with a forward-looking injunction that sets the burden and standard of proof for any future detention. Open questions include how the exception would apply on a record showing genuine flight risk or danger, and how the § 1225(b) mandatory-detention theory would fare on a fuller analysis.