Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Selvin Fernando Rivera Martinez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 8, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The same day he moved for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release. The petition alleged that he entered the United States in 2023, has lived here continuously since, and has no criminal history. It also alleged that ICE arrested him without a warrant. Based on the briefing, the court found that ICE detained him on or about July 23, 2026, during a traffic stop of a vehicle in which he was a passenger.
On October 9, 2026, the court set a briefing schedule. It directed respondent to say whether any provision of law or fact distinguished the case from several of the court's prior decisions, and to state any opposition to the court ruling directly on the petition. Respondent opposed on October 14, 2026. It argued that petitioner had not been denied due process because he never asked an immigration judge for a custody re-determination hearing, and that the petition should be denied for failure to exhaust. Respondent submitted evidence that a warrant was issued on October 13, 2026, one day before its opposition and months after the arrest. It did not say whether it objected to a ruling on the petition itself, so the court decided the petition.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Dale A. Drozd granted the petition. The court relied on the text of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows an alien to be arrested and detained pending a removal decision 'on a warrant issued by the Attorney General.' Respondent's only warrant evidence was dated October 13, 2026, and it failed to explain why a warrant issued months after the July arrest. The court concluded that the detention was unlawful and ordered immediate release. It cited a District of Maine decision and two earlier Eastern District of California decisions that found release appropriate where the government did not comply with the warrant requirement.
The court waived the exhaustion requirement, citing another Eastern District decision, 'to avoid further irreparable harm and further delay in vindicating Petitioner's rights.' It ordered respondent to release petitioner immediately. It also enjoined respondent from re-detaining him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, unless it first gives notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge. At that hearing the burden is to be set in accordance with § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The order does not itself assign the burden. The court denied the temporary restraining order motion as moot, and directed the clerk to serve the detention facility, enter judgment for petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court read § 1226(a) to require arrest on a warrant, and a warrant issued months after the arrest, with no explanation for the delay, did not save the detention.
- The ruling rests on statutory noncompliance with the warrant requirement. The court did not decide petitioner's due process arguments or the removal proceedings.
- Respondent's argument that petitioner should first seek a custody re-determination hearing did not defeat relief, because the court waived exhaustion to avoid further irreparable harm.
- The release is accompanied by a conditional bar on re-detention. Absent exigent circumstances, ICE must give notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, with the burden set under § 1226(a) and its regulations rather than specified in the order.
Why It Matters
This is a short district court order in a pro se habeas case. It carries persuasive weight only and is not binding on other courts. It applies the court's earlier reasoning in similar cases and shows that, in this court, the government risks a release order when it cannot show the arrest was made on a warrant, as § 1226(a) requires.
Several matters remain open. The order does not resolve whether a later-issued warrant could ever cure a warrantless arrest where the government offers an explanation, because respondent offered none. It also does not address the underlying removal proceedings or who bears the burden at any future custody hearing.