Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lidia Hernandez Ancelmo is a civil immigration detainee held at the California City Immigration Processing Center. Her pancreatic cancer has been in remission for five years. Her custody medical chart lists twenty active problems, including a prior heart attack, hypertension, chest pain, anemia, and abnormal uterine bleeding. ICE took her into custody on March 6, 2026. Her first habeas petition, filed May 20, 2026, was denied after the government asserted mandatory detention based on misdemeanor convictions and she did not contest it. She filed this second petition on July 18, 2026, alleging that her conditions of confinement violate the Fifth Amendment.
The court treated the core medical facts as undisputed. Her husband's declaration states that arresting agents would not let her bring her medication and that the facility declined to let him arrange delivery. Medical records, which end in May 2026, show that she reported soaking through pads, did not receive her bleeding medication, urgently asked for blood pressure medication, and on April 30 reported she could not breathe and felt pulsations in her chest. Staff noted that her prior treatment plan and planned testing had "changed/failed because she is in custody." In September 2026 her counsel sought an expedited ruling, stating that care remained inadequate. Respondents offered no contrary evidence.
Separately, the morning after this court stayed her removal in July 2026, Respondents removed her to Mexico and left her at the Mexico-Guatemala border without medication, identification, money, or a phone. She stated that ICE told her the medication had been thrown away and that she must travel about 2,000 miles to San Ysidro herself. The court ordered her return by July 31. The deadline passed without compliance, and the court ordered $568.69 in compensatory sanctions. Respondents reported on August 9 that she had re-entered and was detained again at the same facility.
The Court’s Holding
The court first rejected Respondents' abuse-of-the-writ argument. It accepted that the conditions existed when the first petition was filed. It nonetheless applied the fundamental-miscarriage-of-justice exception, reasoning that refusing to hear the claim could prolong unlawful detention and untreated medical decline.
On jurisdiction, the court acknowledged that conditions claims ordinarily proceed through civil rights vehicles and that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has decided whether immigration detainees may use habeas for them. It exercised 28 U.S.C. § 2241 jurisdiction for three reasons. The Prison Litigation Reform Act does not apply to civil detainees, section 1983 does not reach federal actors, and the Supreme Court has declined to extend Bivens to such claims. Applying Pinson, it asked whether release is legally required regardless of the relief requested. It concluded that release was required because no protocol would cure the violation. The record showed the facility had been unable to deliver the care she needs, and Respondents did not dispute this. Because Respondents twice violated this court's orders, the court also declined to presume they would comply with an order directing medical care. It noted that equitable injunctive relief might offer another path to release but is a remedy of last resort.
On the merits, the court applied the four-part Gordon test as used in Roman. It found intentional decisions about her conditions, a substantial risk of serious harm, failure to take reasonable available measures despite repeated notice, and resulting injury, including imminent danger to her health. It granted the petition as to Count One and ordered immediate release and return of her documents and possessions. It also enjoined re-arrest or re-detention absent constitutional protections. At a minimum those are notice of changed circumstances and a timely hearing with counsel present. At that hearing the government must show danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and show by a preponderance that it can meet her medical needs in custody. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court allowed a conditions-of-confinement claim by an immigration detainee to proceed under § 2241 because other remedies were unavailable and release was the only cure.
- Neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has resolved whether detainees may use habeas for conditions claims, so this order is persuasive at most.
- The medical-care claim was analyzed under the four-part Gordon test, and the court relied on undisputed records and the absence of contrary evidence.
- The government's two violations of court orders led the court to decline to presume compliance with a lesser injunction.
- Release came with a bar on re-detention absent notice, a hearing, and government burdens on danger or flight and on its ability to meet her medical needs.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order. It binds only the parties and has no precedential weight beyond its persuasive reasoning. It is also highly fact-specific. It rests on undisputed medical records, a record showing the facility could not deliver needed care, and the government's repeated disregard of court orders. It does not hold that conditions claims by detainees generally warrant release.
The order does not address any appeal or any counts other than Count One. Its re-detention conditions apply to this petitioner only. Other courts may weigh the habeas-jurisdiction question differently where remedial measures short of release are available.