Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michelly De Jesus Sandigo Ortega filed a habeas corpus petition in the Central District of California on October 19, 2026, challenging her immigration detention. According to the petition, she entered the United States by air in March 2023 through an official parole program, holds employment authorization through January 2030, and has a pending asylum application. The petition also alleges that she has no criminal history, complied with every reporting requirement, and worked as an assistant teacher supporting children with disabilities and as a part-time server. These facts come from the petition, and the order recites them as allegations.
The petition alleges that on October 12, 2026, immigration officials detained her at an airport as she tried to travel domestically, while apparently looking for other people she was traveling with. She alleges that one officer told her she was free to leave but a different officer then arrested her, that no warrant was presented, and that she received neither advance notice nor a hearing. She asserted a procedural due process claim and a claim of unlawful arrest under applicable statutes and regulations. She sought release, declaratory relief, an injunction against re-detention without pre-deprivation process or, alternatively, a new bond hearing under a clear and convincing standard, an injunction against transfer, and an order to show cause.
Respondents received notice of General Order 26-05 on October 19, 2026, which required an answer within seven days. No responsive pleading was filed, and Respondents had not appeared or otherwise defended when the court ruled.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth granted the petition on October 27, 2026. The court framed the issue under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and noted that, under Zadvydas v. Davis, noncitizens in the United States are entitled to due process whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. It observed that many, but not all, courts have found that noncitizens released on parole are entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before re-detention. It cited decisions from the Eastern District of California and the District of Oregon and contrasted a Central District decision stressing that due process is flexible and does not always require a pre-deprivation hearing.
The court did not independently resolve that disagreement. Respondents did not appear and offered no argument on whether notice and a hearing were required, so the court treated their failure to defend as a concession to the petition and its requested relief. It relied on the party presentation principle and granted the petition as unopposed. Because relief was available on that basis, it did not reach the petition's other grounds.
The order directs that Petitioner be immediately released from immigration detention, that Respondents return her personal belongings including identity documents and paperwork, and that judgment be entered accordingly. The court declined to enjoin future detention without notice and a hearing. It regarded additional relief addressing a hypothetical re-detention as unnecessary and cited a Central District decision that habeas relief should not exceed the claims in the petition or rest on speculation. The decretal paragraphs do not separately grant the declaratory relief, the transfer injunction, or the alternative bond hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A respondent's failure to appear in a habeas case can lead the court to treat the petition and its requested relief as conceded and to grant the petition as unopposed.
- The order does not settle the legal question of pre-deprivation hearings for released parolees. It acknowledges authority on both sides, and the relief rests on the government's non-appearance.
- The facts about the petitioner's background and arrest are the petition's allegations, which the court accepted without an evidentiary hearing because no one contested them.
- Release and return of documents were ordered, but the court declined an injunction against possible future re-detention as speculative and beyond the claims presented.
- As a single district court order, it carries limited precedential weight and does not bind other judges.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Central District magistrate judge handled a parolee re-detention petition when the government did not respond to the court's general order. Its reasoning turns on the absence of opposition rather than a full merits ruling, so its persuasive value on whether due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing is limited. It is useful mainly for collecting authority on that question and for showing the consequences of default in expedited habeas proceedings.
Several matters remain open. The court did not decide what process would be required if Respondents seek to detain Petitioner again, and it did not reach the unlawful-arrest claim or the alternative request for a bond hearing. A contested case would require the court to resolve the question that this order left unresolved.