Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Felix Albino Martinez, a Mexican national who became a lawful permanent resident in 2017, was convicted between 2022 and 2024 under Nevada law of fraudulent use of a credit card, possession of a stolen vehicle, and grand larceny of a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to 12 to 36 months in state confinement on the first two convictions and 19 to 48 months on the grand larceny conviction. When he finished that sentence in December 2025, he was transferred directly to ICE custody and served that day with a Notice to Appear charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for crimes involving moral turpitude. In February 2026 the notice was amended to add charges under §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (a)(2)(A)(iii).
Martinez has been held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1) for about ten months without a bond hearing. In removal proceedings he contested removability and, after the immigration court sustained the charges, applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, requesting a continuance to prepare that application. According to EOIR case information cited by the court, he was ordered removed in October 2026 and has until November 2, 2026 to appeal. He then sought habeas relief in the Eastern District of California, arguing that his continued detention had become unconstitutionally prolonged.
The Court’s Holding
The court noted there was no dispute that Martinez is detained under § 1226(c), which requires detention of noncitizens in removal proceedings who are deportable for covered offenses, so the only question was his as-applied Fifth Amendment due process claim. It observed that the Supreme Court has not directly addressed such challenges, that the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez v. Marin expressed grave doubts about arbitrary prolonged detention without process, and that district courts have routinely found that unreasonably long detention without a bond hearing may violate due process.
The court then recited eight factors that courts in this Circuit have weighed, drawn from the Western District of Washington decision in Martinez v. Clark: total length of detention to date, likely future duration, whether detention will exceed the time served for the underlying crime, the nature of the crimes, conditions of detention, delays caused by the petitioner, delays caused by the government, and the likelihood of a final removal order. It concluded that Martinez had not made a showing on these factors.
Ten months was lengthy and could continue if he appeals, but it had not yet exceeded his state sentence, which the court cited as 19 to 48 months. Martinez offered no evidence that the government caused any delay, and the proceedings appeared to have progressed in due course. The existing removal order further suggested the proceedings would ultimately produce a final order of removal, and he submitted no evidence about conditions of confinement. On this record the claim failed. The court denied the petition without prejudice, directed the Clerk to close the case, and ordered entry of judgment for Respondents.
Key Takeaways
- On this record, about ten months of mandatory detention under § 1226(c) without a bond hearing did not violate due process, in part because it had not exceeded the petitioner's state sentence.
- The court treated an October 2026 removal order, though still appealable, as suggesting that proceedings would end in a final order of removal, which weighed against the claim.
- The petitioner's failure to offer evidence of government-caused delay or of his conditions of confinement contributed to the denial.
- Although the denial was without prejudice, the court closed the case and directed judgment for Respondents. It did not address whether or when a new petition could be filed, or what would follow if detention outlasts the sentence or an appeal.
- This is an unpublished district court order, not binding precedent, and it relies on other district decisions as persuasive authority.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court in the Eastern District of California may apply the multi-factor test to an as-applied challenge to § 1226(c) detention, with the comparison to the criminal sentence and the progress of removal proceedings carrying substantial weight. It is a record-specific ruling, not a bright-line rule, and it does not decide how the analysis would change if detention outlasts the sentence or is extended by an appeal.
Because it is an unpublished district court order, it has no precedential force, and the eight factors come from district decisions rather than a controlling Ninth Circuit test identified in the order. Detainees seeking bond hearings should develop evidence on delay and conditions. The order does not say whether Martinez appealed the removal order before the November 2, 2026 deadline.