Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Diego Raymundo-Raymundo, a Guatemalan citizen represented by counsel, entered the United States without inspection in 2014. On or about August 11, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him outside his residence in Virginia under an administrative warrant, and a Notice to Appear placing him in removal proceedings issued the same day. His record includes arrests for domestic-violence-related conduct, all of which were dropped without conviction, and a 2022 conviction for driving under the influence. He has no pending criminal charges or outstanding warrants, has been continuously detained since the arrest, and has been moved among facilities, including the California City Immigration Processing Center.
Petitioner filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 9, 2026, alleging that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment's procedural due process guarantee. Respondents moved to dismiss on September 29, arguing that he is held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was already set for a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. Petitioner did not oppose the motion. The court treated the verified allegations as an affidavit, noted that respondents agreed the facts were largely undisputed, and substituted the warden of the California City facility as the proper respondent.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that petitioner has received the process due. Both sides agreed he is detained under § 1226(a), which, as described in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, gives a noncitizen an initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, the opportunity to be represented by counsel and present evidence, a right to appeal, and a right to seek a new hearing if circumstances materially change. The record showed that the Department of Homeland Security made an initial custody determination, gave petitioner notice, and granted his request for a custody redetermination hearing set for October 2, 2026. On that basis the court agreed with respondents that § 1226(a) procedures were followed.
The court therefore recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted, the petition be dismissed, and the Clerk be directed to close the case. The findings do not say whether dismissal would be with or without prejudice. The court acknowledged that the record does not show the outcome of the October 2 hearing, noting only that a public ICE detainee locator indicated petitioner remained in custody. The analysis rested on the adequacy of the statutory bond process and did not separately explore other theories of unlawful detention.
Only the substitution of the respondent warden was ordered. The dismissal is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not a final judgment. Parties have fourteen days to file objections and seven days to respond to any objections, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is entitled to a bond hearing, and this court found that a hearing already requested, granted and scheduled satisfied the process the petition demanded.
- The ruling is only a recommendation; the substitution of the warden is the sole operative order, and no dismissal takes effect unless the district judge adopts the recommendation.
- Petitioner's failure to oppose the motion to dismiss left respondents' account of the § 1226(a) procedures effectively uncontested.
- Because the record does not show what happened at the October 2 hearing, the decision does not resolve whether continued detention after a bond decision, or any delay in holding the hearing, would be lawful.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how a court in the Eastern District of California may treat a habeas challenge by a person detained under § 1226(a) when a bond hearing has already been granted: the statutory process described in Rodriguez Diaz is treated as the due process owed. It is a non-precedential magistrate judge recommendation that applies existing Ninth Circuit authority rather than announcing new law.
Its reach is limited. The court did not address a challenge to the outcome of a bond hearing, prolonged detention, or detention under a different statute, and the hearing's result is unknown. Because dismissal is only recommended and its prejudice status is unspecified, whether petitioner could return to court if bond was denied or delayed remains open.