Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Manuel De Jesus Rosales, an immigration detainee, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In an earlier habeas case, the court had granted a petition and ordered a bond hearing. At the May 18, 2026 hearing, an immigration judge denied a change in custody, finding that Rosales was a danger to the community and a flight risk. According to the petition, he did not appeal that decision.
In the new petition, Rosales argued that his detention had become unreasonably prolonged. Respondents answered that he was lawfully detained and had already received an individualized bond hearing. The magistrate judge noted that Rosales invoked the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, Zadvydas v. Davis, and 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The magistrate judge found Zadvydas and § 1231 inapplicable because the parties did not dispute that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The magistrate judge concluded that he had received due process and recommended denial.
Rosales objected to the findings and recommendations in their entirety, raising ten enumerated objections. They included that his removal order is not administratively final, that mandatory detention is inapplicable, that he was owed a constitutionally adequate bond hearing at which the government bears the burden, that his prolonged-detention due process claim and Mathews v. Eldridge balancing went unaddressed, and that his equities deserved more weight.
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing the matter de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court adopted the findings and recommendations. It first rejected the premise of Rosales's lead objection. The magistrate judge had not found that he is detained under § 1231. The finding was that he is held under § 1226(a), which the parties did not dispute. That finding did not contradict an earlier minute order in which the magistrate judge asked Respondents to clarify the detention authority. The court also stated that the magistrate judge had considered the due process claim, and it found the remaining objections unavailing.
On the merits, the court reasoned that Rosales received a bond hearing in May 2026 and has been detained about five months since. It held that this period does not rise to the level of prolonged detention. It cited Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 52 F.4th 1189, 1207 (9th Cir. 2022), which identified the months following the first bond hearing as the relevant period. It also cited Gagiu v. ICE Field Office Director, 2026 WL 2291295 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2026), a district court decision that treated five months as less than the presumptively reasonable period for a petitioner held under § 1226(a). Rosales failed to show error in the magistrate judge's analysis or an entitlement to a second bond hearing.
The court denied the petition without prejudice and lifted the transfer restrictions imposed on June 26, 2026. It terminated two pending matters as moot and closed the case. The order does not revisit the immigration judge's danger and flight-risk determination or address any relief beyond the habeas petition.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) who has had a bond hearing will struggle to show prolonged detention after only about five months.
- In assessing prolonged detention, this court looked to the months following the first bond hearing, relying on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland.
- Objections that misstate the detention authority the magistrate judge actually identified, where the parties did not dispute that authority, are contradicted by the record and will be overruled.
- Zadvydas and § 1231 did not govern here because the undisputed basis for detention was § 1226(a).
- Because the denial is without prejudice, it does not by its terms foreclose a later petition, but this order does not say what would justify one.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order, not a published opinion, so it carries no binding precedential weight. It is useful as an example of how an Eastern District of California judge applies Rodriguez Diaz to a § 1226(a) detainee who has already had a bond hearing. The out-of-circuit Gagiu decision is persuasive support only.
The order shows that a short period of post-hearing detention, with no appeal of the immigration judge's decision, was not enough to obtain a second hearing. Because the denial is without prejudice, the order does not decide how a longer period of detention would be treated. It also does not decide any challenge to the correctness of the bond hearing itself.