Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bohdan Viazovik, a federal immigration detainee representing himself and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 29, 2026, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order. He is held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility. On June 30, 2026, the court denied the restraining order motion as untimely, set a briefing schedule, and referred the merits to the assigned magistrate judge.
On September 4, 2026, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition and ordering a bond hearing because, although Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), his detention had become prolonged. Respondents timely objected. According to the order, their objections repeated the argument from their earlier filing that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under section 1226(c).
This is a district court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation. The materials do not show it as a reported decision, and it carries no binding precedential weight.
The Court’s Holding
The court conducted a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) of the entire file, including Respondents' objections. It concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and by proper analysis, given that Petitioner's detention had exceeded eight months. It cited another Eastern District decision, Singh v. Warden of California City Correctional Center, 2026 WL 1831068 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2026), which applied Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to find that a petitioner detained over eight months under section 1226(c) was entitled to a bond hearing. The order is brief. It does not itself walk through the Mathews factors or answer the objections in detail.
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition. It ordered Respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge that complies with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). At that hearing the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denying bond. If the immigration judge determines he is not a danger and not so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond, the judge should consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017).
The order also sets procedural requirements. Petitioner must receive at least 72 hours' notice of the hearing and has the right to counsel and to appear. If counsel has appeared in the immigration proceedings, counsel must receive the same notice. Respondents must give the immigration judge a copy of the order and ensure the hearing is recorded. The clerk was directed to serve the detention facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case. The order does not release Petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated detention exceeding eight months under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as prolonged enough, on this record, to require an individualized bond hearing.
- At the hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community.
- If Petitioner is found neither dangerous nor so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond, the immigration judge should consider his finances and alternative release conditions.
- The order requires 72 hours' notice, the right to counsel and to appear, a recorded hearing, and delivery of the order to the immigration judge.
- The court granted a hearing, not release, so whether Petitioner is ultimately granted bond remains open.
Why It Matters
The order shows a district court applying a case-by-case, Mathews-based approach to prolonged detention under section 1226(c). On this record it treated more than eight months of detention as sufficient to require a bond hearing. It does not announce a fixed time limit or resolve the lawfulness of mandatory detention generally. Its reasoning rests largely on the magistrate judge's findings and a prior order from the same court.
The relief is limited. Petitioner receives a hearing, not release, and the immigration judge must decide flight risk and danger under the clear-and-convincing standard. Because judgment was entered and the case closed, further developments would occur in the immigration proceedings or on any appeal, and the order addresses neither.