Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Basir Ahmad Safi, an immigration detainee proceeding through counsel, filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged immigration detention. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 11, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations granting the petition, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within seven days.
Respondents objected to the findings and recommendations "for the reasons set forth in their previous pleadings," and petitioner objected to respondents' objections "for the reasons set forth in his previous pleadings." The district court noted that respondents' arguments had been previously addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned judge in other cases, specifically citing Davoodi v. Chestnut et al., No. 1:26-cv-00033-DC-ICD (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2026) and Gutierrez-Martinez v. Chestnut et al., No. 1:26-cv-04722-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 2247970 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2026), both of which granted habeas petitions where the government failed to show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Court’s Holding
The district court conducted a de novo review of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, and found the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus on count one, rendering it unnecessary to address additional grounds raised in the petition.
The court ordered petitioner's immediate release from respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to prior to his present immigration detention, and prohibited respondents from imposing additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. Respondents were ordered to return all of petitioner's documents and possessions upon release and to file a notice of compliance within three days. The court permanently enjoined respondents from seeking to revoke petitioner's release unless and until they comply with all procedures set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l), 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), any other applicable statutes and regulations, and the requirements of due process. The clerk was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility and to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief where the government failed to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, consistent with Zadvydas v. Davis and binding precedent in the Eastern District of California.
- The immediate release order prohibits the government from imposing additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring without a future pre-deprivation hearing.
- Respondents are permanently enjoined from revoking the petitioner's release without complying with specific regulatory procedures at 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) and due process requirements.
- The court relied on its prior decisions in Davoodi and Gutierrez-Martinez, which rejected identical government arguments regarding prolonged detention.
- The petition was granted on count one alone, making it unnecessary for the court to address alternative grounds for relief raised in the amended petition.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the constitutional and statutory limits on prolonged immigration detention established in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), requiring the government to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future to justify continued detention beyond the statutory removal period. The decision follows a pattern in the Eastern District of California of granting habeas relief in similar cases where the government has failed to meet this burden, as seen in Davoodi and Gutierrez-Martinez. The permanent injunction against revocation of release without compliance with specific regulatory procedures and due process provides ongoing protection for the petitioner beyond the immediate release order.