Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jorge Hernandez Angeles, a citizen of Mexico, has been held in immigration custody at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center since October 5, 2026. Represented by counsel, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 26, 2026, naming Markwayne Mullin and other federal respondents. Respondents filed an answer on October 28, and Petitioner filed a traverse on October 30. The Central District of California decided the matter in a two-page civil minutes order dated November 2, 2026, which is unreported.
The petition alleged three violations: the Fourth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and Fifth Amendment substantive due process. These are Petitioner's allegations; the order makes no findings about how the arrest occurred. The court noted that a writ may be granted to a petitioner in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), and that habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Respondents acknowledged that Petitioner appears entitled to a bond hearing under section 1226(a).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge treated the constitutional and statutory claims differently. On the Fourth Amendment and substantive due process claims, the court found that release from custody is not the appropriate remedy, reasoning that the remedy for an unlawful arrest is suppression of evidence obtained from it, not release. It cited Hernandez v. Facility Administrator, 2026 WL 2525600 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2026), and Suraj v. Bondi, 2026 WL 507682 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2026). The court denied the petition to the extent it seeks release on those claims and did not decide whether the arrest was actually unlawful.
On the statutory claim, the court agreed that Petitioner's detention violates section 1226(a) and granted the petition in part. Within seven days of the entry of judgment, Respondents must provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge, at which the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that detention is necessary because Petitioner is an unacceptable danger to the community or an unacceptable risk of flight. A footnote states that Petitioner failed to show entitlement to any different or additional relief.
The relief is a hearing, not release. The order gives little reasoning on the statutory claim: it does not explain the section 1226(a) analysis beyond noting Respondents' acknowledgment, and it cites no authority for the clear-and-convincing burden. Whether Petitioner is ultimately released depends on the immigration judge's decision at the hearing, which the order does not predict.
Key Takeaways
- In this order, a petitioner's Fourth Amendment and substantive due process challenges to an immigration arrest did not support release from custody, because the court treated suppression of evidence as the remedy for an unlawful arrest.
- The court granted relief on the statutory claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), requiring a bond hearing before an immigration judge rather than ordering release.
- At that hearing the government carries the burden by clear and convincing evidence to show danger to the community or flight risk.
- Respondents must provide the hearing within seven days of the entry of judgment, so the deadline runs from judgment rather than from the date of the order.
- The order is unreported and is a district court minute order, so it offers persuasive value at most, and the court found no entitlement to any different or additional relief.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates one approach in this district to immigration habeas petitions when the government does not contest entitlement to a bond hearing: the court enforces the statutory bond hearing and declines to convert arrest-related constitutional claims into a release order. The decision rests on citations to other district court rulings, and the court did not independently analyze the Fourth Amendment claim.
Practitioners should read it narrowly. It is an unpublished, non-precedential minute order with brief reasoning, and the district court decisions it cites are not binding. Its practical effect is limited to this petitioner: a seven-day bond hearing with a burden on the government, with nothing decided about release, the lawfulness of the arrest, or any removal proceedings.