Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Morgado, a citizen of Cuba, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention at the California City Immigration Processing Center. The order applies 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1), which the court describes as authorizing detention of up to six months, and it measures that period from Morgado's March 9, 2026 guilty plea to 11 felony charges in Florida state court. The order is short and leaves further detail to the magistrate judge's earlier findings, which were not part of the materials reviewed.
On October 9, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the petition be granted and that Respondents be directed to release Morgado immediately. Respondents filed timely objections on October 23, 2026. The district judge reviewed the entire file de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including those objections. As the order describes the government's position, Respondents claimed to be pursuing third-country removal to Mexico, and the dispute turned on whether that claim made removal reasonably foreseeable.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition. It found, first, that Morgado's detention had exceeded the six months authorized by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1) following his March 9, 2026 plea. Second, it agreed with the magistrate judge that Respondents had failed to demonstrate they were likely to be able to remove Morgado in the reasonably foreseeable future.
On the Mexico theory, the court reasoned that Respondents had not explained how they could carry out a third-country removal without Morgado's consent, citing its earlier decision in Cruz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2026). A footnote says Respondents have made this assertion repeatedly in numerous cases despite the court's prior rulings, which effectively amounts to an admission that they have no practical plans for removal. Despite Morgado's criminal record, the court concluded that Respondents had taken no serious action toward removal and that it had no choice but to find he could no longer be detained.
The relief has four parts. Respondents must immediately release Morgado under appropriate conditions of supervision. They are enjoined from re-detaining him under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2) unless there are material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker determines there is a significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Clerk must serve the detention center with the order. The Clerk must then close the case. A footnote states that the injunction does not stop Respondents from re-detaining Morgado for an additional six months under the same six-month provision if he again violates the terms of his release.
Key Takeaways
- The court required Respondents to demonstrate that removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and it found they had not done so.
- A general claim that the government is pursuing third-country removal to Mexico is not enough when the government does not explain how removal can occur without the noncitizen's consent.
- A petitioner's criminal record did not by itself justify continued detention where the government had not shown any serious effort or realistic prospect of removal.
- Release came with an injunction against re-detention under § 241.13(i)(2) absent material changed circumstances and a neutral decisionmaker's finding of a significant likelihood of removal.
- The order leaves open the possibility of a further six-month detention if Morgado again violates the terms of his supervised release.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation. It is not binding precedent, even within the Eastern District of California, although the court cites its own recent ruling in Cruz and treats the government's repeated reliance on Mexico as a recurring problem. Other litigants may cite it as persuasive, but its reasoning is brief and the fuller analysis sits in the magistrate judge's findings.
Practically, the order signals that this court expects concrete, case-specific explanation of how removal will be accomplished, not a formulaic reference to a third country. The order does not specify the conditions of supervision or address any appeal. It also does not decide whether Morgado could ultimately be removed should circumstances change.