Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Moses Jolaoso Oluwatomisin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order in the Eastern District of California. He alleged that two months in ICE custody without a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Respondents, including the warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, answered both filings together. They contended that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that a bond hearing was scheduled for the coming week.
In reply, Petitioner agreed that section 1226(a) governed his detention. His remaining argument was that due process required the Government to bear the burden of proof at the bond hearing. In an earlier order dated June 23, 2026, the Court denied the TRO, finding that due process did not require shifting the burden of proof under the circumstances, and directed Respondents to file a status report on the outcome of the hearing.
Respondents then reported that Petitioner had withdrawn his request for a bond hearing, and no hearing had been held. The Court issued an order to show cause why it should not direct the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days and enter judgment in Petitioner's favor.
The Court’s Holding
The Court denied the habeas petition without prejudice. Its stated reason was narrow: there was no dispute that Petitioner's detention is controlled by § 1226(a), which entitles him to a bond hearing. Respondents had opposed granting the petition because, they argued, Petitioner did not ask to reschedule the hearing after withdrawing his request, but they also said they did not oppose scheduling a hearing, with or without a court order. The Court neither ordered a hearing nor entered judgment for Petitioner.
The order is expressly without prejudice. It states that it does not preclude Petitioner from filing a renewed petition if Respondents fail to provide him with a timely bond hearing upon his request. The docket text marks the case closed, but the denial is not a ruling that Petitioner lacks a right to a hearing; the Court treated that entitlement as undisputed. The order does not revisit the burden-of-proof question, which was addressed only in the earlier TRO ruling.
Key Takeaways
- The Court denied the petition without prejudice because it was undisputed that section 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention and entitles him to a bond hearing, and Respondents did not oppose scheduling one.
- The order sets no deadline for a hearing; it leaves Petitioner to request one and expressly permits a renewed petition if Respondents fail to provide a timely hearing upon his request.
- The burden-of-proof ruling appears only in the earlier TRO order, as described here, and this order does not decide who bears the burden at a future hearing.
- Because the denial is without prejudice, it is not a final rejection of Petitioner's due process claim, and Respondents' argument that he failed to request rescheduling was not resolved or used to assign fault.
Why It Matters
This is a short district court order that does not appear to be a reported decision, so it carries little precedential weight. Its value lies in showing how the court handled a habeas petition that became largely academic once the Government made clear that a bond hearing was available. Rather than granting relief or imposing a hearing deadline, the Court denied the petition without prejudice and left an enforcement path open. Practitioners should read it as a procedural disposition, not a merits ruling on the scope of due process protections for detainees held under section 1226(a).
Much remains open. The order does not decide whether prolonged detention without a hearing would violate due process, does not set a timetable for a hearing, and does not resolve who must carry the burden of proof at a later hearing beyond what the earlier TRO ruling addressed. If Petitioner requests a hearing and does not receive one in a timely manner, he may seek relief again. The earlier ruling's reasoning was tied to the circumstances the Court described, and this order should not be read to extend it further.