Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Luciano Sanchez Gonzalez, a 49-year-old Mexican citizen, alleged that he first entered the United States without inspection around 1991 and has lived here more than twenty years with his lawful-permanent-resident wife and four U.S. citizen children, and is guardian to his sister-in-law's three U.S. citizen children. He also alleged a life-threatening heart condition, recent eye surgery with a second procedure set for October 28, 2026, and no criminal history. The court recited these facts as petition allegations.
The petition alleged that on October 5, 2026, ICE officers stopped Petitioner's car in Santa Maria, California, demanded proof of status without presenting a warrant, handcuffed him, and took him to Adelanto. Respondents did not dispute the warrantless arrest, and their Form I-213 showed the Form I-200 arrest warrant issued after it. Petitioner filed a counseled petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 13, asserting Fourth Amendment, Immigration and Nationality Act, and Fifth Amendment due process claims and seeking release. Respondents answered that he appeared entitled to an initial bond hearing under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and asked that any hearing be set within seven days under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The arrest followed a July 2025 DHS policy treating such arrestees as applicants for admission detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition on the Fifth Amendment due process claim. It treated Respondents' failure to answer the allegations that Petitioner was arrested without a warrant and given no initial custody determination as a concession under Local Civil Rule 7-12, and found nothing in the record showing an initial custody determination or an immigration judge hearing since the arrest. It reasoned that Petitioner was held under the wrong authority, Section 1225(b), because the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Vazquez has held that people like him are subject to Section 1226(a), and that the final judgment in Bautista has preclusive effect for Bond Eligible Class members such as Petitioner.
Relying on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, the court described Section 1226(a)'s layered protections: a warrant issued after supervisory review, a prompt initial custody determination, a bond hearing before an immigration judge, appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and renewed hearings on changed circumstances. Because Petitioner received none of them, his detention was unlawful from its inception, and a later bond hearing is no substitute for a deliberative decision before or alongside the decision to detain. The denial created an unacceptably high risk of confinement unjustified by flight risk or danger. The court chose release to restore the status quo, citing the government's continued refusal to comply with the Bautista judgment despite its pending appeal and the court's authority to dispose of habeas matters as law and justice require. It did not reach the other claims.
The order directs entry of judgment granting the petition; a writ requiring immediate release and return of confiscated property; an injunction against re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the government must prove flight risk or danger; and a status report within two business days confirming release.
Key Takeaways
- A court may treat the government's failure to answer a habeas petitioner's due process allegations as a concession under Central District Local Civil Rule 7-12.
- Detaining under Section 1225(b) a person the Ninth Circuit places under Section 1226(a) deprived this petitioner of the statute's protections and made the detention unlawful from the start.
- The court treated a later bond hearing as no substitute for a deliberative initial custody decision, and so ordered release rather than only a hearing.
- The court did not decide the Fourth Amendment or statutory claims, because the due process ruling sufficed.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order resolving one petition on its record; it has persuasive value only and is not binding precedent. Because it is not a published appellate ruling, litigants should rely on the cited Ninth Circuit authority rather than this order itself. Its release remedy rests on uncontested allegations and on the government's noncompliance with the Bautista judgment, which the court noted is on appeal.
Open matters include the unresolved Fourth Amendment and statutory claims, the pending Bautista appeal, and Petitioner's removal proceedings and eligibility for relief, which the order does not address. The injunction limits re-detention only without notice and a pre-detention hearing at which the government bears the burden.