Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Louinel Felix, proceeding pro se, was admitted to the United States on July 18, 2024 under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), according to Respondents' filing. Felix states that he paid taxes, complied with reporting requirements, obtained work authorization, and has a U.S. citizen spouse and child; Respondents' filing reflects no criminal history. That filing also reports that his TPS was canceled on August 7, 2026, and that Border Patrol agents detained him during a traffic stop on August 15, 2026. He was later transferred to the California City Immigration Processing Center.
On September 24, 2026, Felix filed a habeas petition alleging that his civil immigration detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and seeking immediate release. Respondents opposed, arguing that Felix is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). They also suggested he might be amenable to voluntary departure, but the court noted they did not clearly assert that he had agreed to depart, and the contemplated October 1, 2026 departure date had passed.
The Court’s Holding
Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the petition. The court found that Felix has a protected liberty interest in freedom from detention, which Respondents did not dispute. It rejected their only argument, that § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention, relying on Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). As the court read that decision, § 1225(b)(2) applies only to noncitizens entering at the border, while people present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a). The court added that the government's decision to let Felix remain in the community for years strengthened his liberty interest.
Weighing the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found Felix's liberty interest substantial and the risk of erroneous deprivation considerable: he had received virtually no procedural safeguards, Respondents did not argue he was dangerous or a flight risk, and he has no criminal history and community ties. The government's interest in detaining him without notice or a hearing was low, since such procedures are routine under § 1226(a). After nearly two months without a hearing, the court held that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment. That conclusion rests on due process.
The court ordered Respondents to release Felix immediately, return his documents and possessions, and certify compliance within two court days. It enjoined re-detention while he is subject to § 1226(a) unless Respondents provide at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, where the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that no alternative to detention can mitigate danger or flight risk and where Felix may have counsel. The temporary restraining order motion was denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court read Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock as rejecting the government's view that § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention of noncitizens apprehended in the interior, leaving them under discretionary § 1226(a).
- Years of government-permitted liberty in the community, here under TPS, can strengthen a protected liberty interest.
- Applying Mathews, the court required notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, finding nearly two months of detention without a hearing unconstitutional.
- Release was ordered, but re-detention is not barred outright; it is conditioned on seven days' notice and a hearing where the government bears a clear-and-convincing burden.
- The order addresses custody only; the opinion does not describe or decide any removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order, so it binds only the parties and carries persuasive weight at most. Its reasoning depends heavily on the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision, which the order cites by Westlaw citation only and without stating whether it is published.
The order follows other Eastern District of California rulings it cites, including Doe v. Becerra and Garcia v. Andrews, in applying Mathews to require individualized hearings. Its re-detention conditions, including the clear-and-convincing standard, are specific to this case, and Respondents remain free to pursue removal through ordinary proceedings subject to those conditions. Whether the government will seek further review is not addressed.