Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Alyson Caio D.S.B., an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by the Warden of the California City Detention Facility. 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 October 6, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within seven days. Respondent filed objections to the findings and recommendations, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) procedures are facially constitutional.
The district court conducted a de novo review of the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. The court examined whether the government complied with § 1226(a)'s procedural requirements, which mandate that a noncitizen may be arrested and detained only on a warrant issued by the Attorney General pending a removal decision, and must be provided an initial custody determination shortly after detention. The record contained no evidence of a warrant, an initial custody determination, or any opportunity for Petitioner to formally request a bond hearing through Form I-286 or any other method. Petitioner had been detained for nearly seven weeks without any custody hearing, and Respondent had not scheduled any such hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court found the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis, adopting them in full. The court held that the government failed to comply with § 1226(a)'s procedural safeguards in detaining Petitioner: there was no evidence of an administrative warrant issued prior to arrest as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(b)(1), no initial custody determination provided shortly after detention, and no opportunity to request a bond hearing. Citing Trevor J.M. v. Warden and Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, the court affirmed that issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify discretionary detention under § 1226(a), and citing Zurita Navarro v. Warden, that failure to provide an initial custody determination violates the statute.
The court concluded that the government's failure to follow statutory procedures and to provide a custody hearing for nearly seven weeks deprived Petitioner of an opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner" in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, citing Mathews v. Eldridge and Armstrong v. Manzo. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordered immediate release of Petitioner, and enjoined re-detention under § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections. The injunction requires a minimum of seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in detention outweighs Petitioner's liberty interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk, citing Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions. The court also ordered return of Petitioner's possessions and documents, and required Respondent to file a notice certifying compliance within two days.
Key Takeaways
- The government must issue an administrative warrant prior to arresting a noncitizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), absent an exception; warrantless arrests violate the statute.
- An initial custody determination must be provided shortly after detention under § 1226(a); failure to do so constitutes a procedural violation.
- Detention for nearly seven weeks without any custody hearing or opportunity to request a bond hearing violates Fifth Amendment due process.
- Re-detention under § 1226(a) requires a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder with seven days' notice, where the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified and no alternative suffices.
- The court's injunction establishes specific procedural protections for any future detention of this petitioner under § 1226(a).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) detention authority is not self-executing but carries mandatory procedural prerequisites—including a warrant, initial custody determination, and access to bond hearing mechanisms—that the government must satisfy before and during detention. The court's de novo adoption of the magistrate's findings underscores that facial constitutionality of the statute does not excuse non-compliance with its procedural requirements in individual cases. The injunction's detailed requirements for any future detention—seven days' notice, neutral factfinder, clear and convincing evidence standard, and consideration of alternatives—operationalizes the due process framework from Zadvydas and Hernandez in the § 1226(a) context, providing a concrete template for compliance that may influence similar habeas challenges in the Eastern District of California and beyond.