Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, identified in the order only as Leopoldo P.S. because the court withholds full names in immigration matters, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his civil immigration detention at the California City Detention Facility. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued findings and recommendations on October 6, 2026. The findings gave the parties seven days to object, and no party did. The district court therefore presumed the factual findings correct and reviewed the legal conclusions de novo. It found the recommendations supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.
Respondents conceded that Petitioner is entitled to a custody determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and Petitioner had requested one in writing. After more than seven weeks of detention, no hearing had been held or scheduled. Respondents also did not make an initial custody determination until more than a month into detention, which the court found violated § 1226(a). Respondents did not contend that Petitioner is a danger to the community. These are conclusions drawn from the written record; the order describes no contested evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in part and granted the petition. The partial adoption concerned remedy. Consistent with its numerous prior orders in similar cases, the court concluded that the appropriate relief is immediate release from custody rather than a bond hearing. It agreed with the magistrate judge that the detention violated § 1226(a). Because Petitioner had been held unlawfully for many weeks, it reasoned that the remedy is not to bring the government into conformity with its statutes but to release him. It relied on Munaf v. Geren, Preiser v. Rodriguez, and Pinson v. Carvajal for the point that release is the typical and core habeas remedy, and on its own earlier Eastern District decisions ordering release.
Respondents must immediately release Petitioner, return his documents and possessions at release, and file a notice certifying compliance within two court days. The order also enjoins Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner while he is subject to § 1226(a) unless they comply with statutory and constitutional protections. Those include at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring appearance at immigration proceedings outweighs Petitioner's liberty interest, such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk. Petitioner may have counsel present. The court cited Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions for this requirement. It denied the motion to appoint counsel as moot and directed the Clerk to serve the facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered immediate release rather than a bond hearing, reasoning that release is the typical habeas remedy for unlawful executive detention.
- The statutory violations were the absence of any custody hearing in over seven weeks despite a written request and Respondents' concession of entitlement, and an initial custody determination delayed by more than a month.
- Respondents did not argue that Petitioner is a danger to the community, which left the court no reason to depart from its usual release remedy.
- Re-detention under § 1226(a) is conditioned on seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, with a clear-and-convincing burden on the government and counsel permitted.
- This is a district court order that is final as to this petition, with judgment entered and the case closed. It is not appellate precedent, and the order does not discuss any appeal.
Why It Matters
The order shows how one Eastern District of California judge handles habeas petitions from people held under § 1226(a) without timely custody review. The remedy is release, not an order for a hearing the government failed to provide. The court treats a bond hearing as inadequate once unlawful detention has already lasted weeks, and it cites decisions from other districts, including Idaho and West Virginia, taking the same approach.
Its reach is limited. It resolves one petition on an unopposed record, and it does not bind other courts. The re-detention injunction protects only this Petitioner and only while he remains subject to § 1226(a). The order does not decide whether the government may re-detain him once it satisfies the specified procedures, and it does not resolve other disputes about § 1226(a) that different petitioners may raise.