Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Lázaro Alexis G.G., a federal immigration detainee held at the California City Detention Facility, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 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 October 14, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within three days. Respondent filed objections to the findings and recommendations, citing reasons from a prior responsive pleading.
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. After carefully reviewing the entire file, the court found the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The court proceeded to adopt the findings and recommendations in full and grant the petitioner's habeas corpus application on the first ground asserted.
The petitioner had been detained on June 30, 2026, and the court's order addresses the conditions of his release and future detention protections. The case involves the intersection of immigration detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and constitutional due process requirements as established by Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus on ground one only, ordering the immediate release of Lázaro Alexis G.G. on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention on June 30, 2026. The respondent is prohibited from imposing additional restrictions unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. The respondent must provide the petitioner with a copy of the release order at or near the time of release and return all documents and possessions. A notice of compliance must be filed within two court days.
Critically, the court enjoined the respondent from re-detaining the petitioner while subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) absent full compliance with statutory and constitutional protections. This 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 protecting the public or ensuring appearance at immigration proceedings outweighs the petitioner's constitutionally protected interest in remaining free from detention such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that risk. The court cited Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001), and Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017), as controlling authority. At any such hearing, the petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present.
The clerk of the court is directed to serve the California City Detention Facility with a copy of any release order and to enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case. The order was issued by Chief United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley on October 22, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas corpus relief and ordered immediate release of an immigration detainee on pre-detention conditions.
- Re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is enjoined unless the government provides seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder.
- At any future detention hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is necessary and no alternative can mitigate the risk.
- The petitioner has a right to counsel at any future pre-deprivation hearing.
- The court's order relies on Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions as controlling precedent for due process protections in immigration detention.
Why It Matters
This release order establishes a significant procedural safeguard for immigration detainees under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by requiring a robust pre-deprivation hearing with heightened evidentiary standards before re-detention can occur. The court's application of Zadvydas and Hernandez reinforces that prolonged or repeated detention without individualized determinations violates due process, even within the statutory framework of mandatory detention provisions.
The injunction against re-detention absent compliance with specific procedural protections—including seven days' notice, a neutral factfinder, clear and convincing evidence standard, and right to counsel—creates a binding framework that limits executive detention authority. This decision contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on the constitutional boundaries of immigration detention and the procedural due process rights of non-citizens facing removal proceedings.