Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jazmin Davila Martinez, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without inspection as a young child and has lived here about thirty-seven years, petitioned pro se for habeas relief in the Central District of California. ICE first encountered her in January 2019 after a local arrest and released her on recognizance in February 2019 with GPS monitoring. An immigration judge ordered her removed in absentia that August, later reopened the case, and set a $10,000 bond, on which she was released in December 2019. Her removal case was administratively closed in 2022, and USCIS denied two immigration petitions filed on her behalf.
The government's records, as recited in the order, show repeated arrests and convictions from 2014 onward, mostly for theft, identity-use, forgery, stolen-property and drug offenses. In September 2026 she was arrested for felony petty theft with two or more priors. ICE lodged a detainer and, when the county facility said she would be released on September 11, 2026, issued an administrative arrest warrant and took her into custody at Adelanto. She filed her petition on September 24, alleging that re-detention without notice, a pre-deprivation hearing or explanation violated due process and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. After an order to show cause, Respondents answered that she is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as amended by the Laken Riley Act, or alternatively is lawfully held under § 1226(a).
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E). As the order describes it, the Laken Riley Act, enacted in January 2025, added a category covering a person who is inadmissible on certain grounds and is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits committing a burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting or assault-on-an-officer offense, or a crime causing death or serious bodily injury. Her September 2026 arrest for petty theft with priors fell within that language. Because her reply did not dispute Respondents' account of her criminal history or that mandatory detention applied, the court accepted the point without separately analyzing the statute's other elements and did not reach the alternative § 1226(a) argument.
The court then held that Petitioner had not shown a due process or APA violation, because she is subject to mandatory detention. Relying on Demore v. Kim, which upheld mandatory detention without a bond hearing at least for brief periods, it reasoned that due process does not require a pre-deprivation hearing for such detainees and that the government need not make an individualized finding of danger or flight risk, so her argument that she poses neither did not help her. The court denied the petition and said a separate judgment would issue. Petitioner had disclaimed seeking a bond hearing in this action. The court observed that in this district a § 1226(c) detainee receives a bond hearing after six months, at which the government must justify detention by clear and convincing evidence, but she had not been detained that long.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated an arrest, without a conviction, for petty theft with priors as enough to trigger mandatory detention under the Laken Riley Act amendment to § 1226(c).
- Earlier release on recognizance, supervision and bond did not prevent mandatory detention after the new arrest.
- Relying on Demore v. Kim, the court held that mandatory detainees are not entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing or an individualized danger or flight-risk finding.
- The petitioner's failure to dispute her criminal history and the statute's applicability in her reply shaped the outcome.
- Under the district practice the court cited, mandatory detainees may seek a bond hearing after six months of detention, which had not elapsed here.
Why It Matters
This is a short, single-case order by a magistrate judge applying the Laken Riley Act's expanded mandatory detention category to a re-detention. It is not binding precedent, and its statutory reasoning is thin because the petitioner did not contest her criminal history or the applicability of § 1226(c)(1)(E). It does not decide, in a contested setting, how the inadmissibility element must be shown or how the provision applies to arrests that never lead to conviction.
The denial is limited to the present petition and the early stage of detention. Petitioner may seek a bond hearing after six months under the district practice the court cited, and the order does not address her pending immigration applications or the merits of removal. Reliance on Demore at the outset does not resolve claims about prolonged detention.