Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alex Alberto Flores Hernandez, a petitioner held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a California City facility, had four habeas matters pending in the Eastern District of California: Nos. 1:26-cv-03870, 1:26-cv-04569, 1:26-cv-06169, and 1:26-cv-08099. The last had been opened with a different district judge and magistrate judge. Finding the actions related under Local Rule 123(a), Judge Dale A. Drozd concluded that assigning them to one district judge and one magistrate judge would promote efficiency and economy for the court and was likely to be convenient for the parties.
In the 08099 case, petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition on October 2, 2026, challenging his ICE detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release. On October 8, respondent moved to dismiss, asserting that this was petitioner's third successive habeas petition in the district. In an earlier order in No. 1:26-cv-04569, the court had told petitioner that future petitions raising the same grounds would be summarily denied without further explanation. Those grounds were that his pre-final-removal-order detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) violated due process or the INA, or that his bond hearing did not comply with a District of Maryland order.
The Court’s Holding
The court first ordered the cases related and reassigned No. 1:26-cv-08099-TLN-CKD to Judge Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson, with the caption now 1:26-cv-08099-DAD-JDP. It directed the Clerk to adjust civil case assignments to compensate. The order stresses that relating cases under Local Rule 123 only assigns them to the same judges and does not consolidate them. Reassignment rested on Local Rule 123(c), which lets the judge with the lowest-numbered case order reassignment of higher-numbered cases where that will save judicial effort.
On the merits, the court found that petitioner's claims largely raised the same grounds as his prior petitions. To the extent he argued that the length of his detention entitles him to a second bond hearing as a matter of due process, without the changed circumstances that § 1226(a) requires, the court held the Ninth Circuit had foreclosed that argument in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1212 (9th Cir. 2022). It quoted that decision as saying that on those facts "duration alone" cannot sustain a due process challenge by a detainee who has been afforded the process contemplated by § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The petition was therefore dismissed as successive.
The order grants respondent's motion to dismiss, denies the TRO motion as moot, and directs the Clerk to close the 08099 case. It does not say whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, and it does not rule on any other pending matter in the related cases.
Key Takeaways
- Relating cases under Local Rule 123 assigns them to the same district and magistrate judges but does not consolidate them.
- The judge with the lowest-numbered case may reassign higher-numbered related cases under Local Rule 123(c) when that will save judicial effort, and here only No. 1:26-cv-08099 was reassigned.
- The petition was dismissed as successive because it largely repeated grounds from earlier petitions, which the court had previously warned would draw summary denial.
- Under Rodriguez Diaz, as the court applied it, duration of detention alone cannot support a due process challenge by a detainee who has received the process contemplated by § 1226(a) and its regulations.
- The TRO motion seeking immediate release was denied as moot, and the order does not state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order, so it has no precedential weight beyond the parties. Its value lies in showing how the court handles repeated immigration habeas filings by a single detainee. It pairs a case-management step with a dismissal that rests on binding Ninth Circuit authority rather than new reasoning.
The order resolves only the petition in No. 1:26-cv-08099. It does not address the status of the other related cases. It also does not decide whether a detainee could obtain a further bond hearing on a showing of changed circumstances. The court noted that § 1226(a) imposes that requirement but made no finding that petitioner showed any, because his theory rested on duration alone.