Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sandro Porras-Mendivelso, a pro se immigration detainee who has since been released, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his January 2026 detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to the magistrate judge's summary of the record, he was lawfully admitted to the United States in 2018 and received work authorization in 2022. On January 4, 2026, he was served with a Notice of Custody Determination stating that he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. After the petition was filed, an immigration judge ordered his release on a $5,000 bond on February 5, 2026.
On February 6, 2026, the district judge granted petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 9). It ordered immediate release, barred additional restrictions unless later found necessary at a pre-deprivation custody hearing, and enjoined re-arrest or re-detention absent constitutional protections. At a minimum, those protections included pre-deprivation notice of the changed circumstances and a timely hearing at which the government would bear the burden of showing danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner was released on February 9, 2026, and his next immigration hearing was set for November 17, 2026.
Respondent opposed the petition. It argued that petitioner had received the process due under § 1226, as shown by his release, and that the petition should be denied for failure to exhaust. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued findings and recommendations on September 29, 2026 (ECF No. 14). No objections were filed.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge rejected both of respondent's defenses. The district judge had already categorically rejected exhaustion in the preliminary injunction order. Mootness also failed. Relying on a Central District of California decision, the magistrate judge reasoned that petitioner was released because the court ordered it, and interim relief by definition affords no permanent protection. Dismissal would therefore leave respondents free to re-detain petitioner without pre-deprivation process. For the reasons in the earlier order, the magistrate judge concluded that detention without notice or a pre-deprivation bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. That earlier order had found that the re-detention occurred without notice or an opportunity to be heard and was not based on changed circumstances since release.
Because no objections were filed, the district judge presumed any findings of fact correct, reviewed the legal conclusions de novo, and found the recommendations supported by the record and the magistrate judge's analysis. The order adopts the findings and recommendations in full and grants the petition. Respondents are enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections. The adopted recommendation asked that the terms of the preliminary injunction be made permanent, although the order itself states the protection only in general terms.
The order expressly does not address the circumstances in which respondents may detain petitioner if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The order was signed on October 30, 2026, and filed on November 2, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The petition was granted on due process grounds rather than dismissed as moot, even though petitioner had already been released under an interim injunction and an immigration judge's bond order.
- The magistrate judge reasoned that release obtained through preliminary relief does not moot a habeas petition, because temporary relief leaves the government free to re-detain without process.
- The relief looks forward. Respondents may not re-arrest or re-detain petitioner without complying with constitutional protections, which the earlier injunction described as including notice and a timely hearing.
- Nothing in the order limits detention if petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal, and his immigration hearing was set for November 17, 2026.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order that adopts a magistrate judge's recommendations without objection and adds little independent analysis, so it carries no precedential weight. Its value is as an example of how a court in this district handled a petitioner who was released from immigration detention under interim orders and then sought durable protection against re-detention without process.
Its limits matter. The order depends on the earlier preliminary injunction order, which is not among the materials reviewed. It does not decide what detention authority applies after a final removal order. It also does not spell out the content of the constitutional protections beyond the adopted recommendation. It should not be read as resolving when pre-deprivation hearings are required in other settings.