Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Cesar Daniel Amador Andrade, a federal immigration detainee, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by immigration authorities. 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 August 18, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties with notice that objections were due within seven days.
Respondents filed objections on August 25, 2026, relying on their prior briefing. Petitioner replied on September 29, 2026, arguing that the objections failed to rebut the findings and that release—not merely a bond hearing—was the appropriate remedy. The district court conducted a de novo review of the record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in part, granting the habeas petition and ordering Petitioner's immediate release. Relying on recent decisions from the Eastern District of California—Arias Diaz v. Warden, Yi Yang v. Warden, and Lucas-Roblero v. Warden—the court held that due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing even where a noncitizen is allegedly detained in relation to criminal charges. The court found unpersuasive the argument that Petitioner's June 25, 2025 DUI conviction, which resulted in a 365-day jail sentence through the criminal justice system, justified immigration detention without a prior bond hearing.
The court ordered: (a) Petitioner's immediate release from custody under the same conditions he was subject to before his December 2025 detention, with no additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation hearing; (b) return of all documents and possessions upon release; (c) Respondents to file a notice of compliance within three days; (d) if the government seeks re-detention, it must provide at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter; and (e) the order does not address detention circumstances if Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before immigration detention, even when criminal charges are involved.
- A prior criminal conviction resolved through the criminal justice system does not alone justify mandatory immigration detention without a bond hearing.
- The court ordered immediate release—not just a bond hearing—as the remedy for the due process violation.
- Re-detention requires seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The order preserves the government's authority to detain if an executable final order of removal is issued in the future.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a growing line of cases in the Eastern District of California holding that prolonged immigration detention without a pre-deprivation bond hearing violates due process, regardless of the detainee's criminal history. By ordering immediate release rather than merely a bond hearing, the court signaled that the appropriate remedy for such a constitutional violation is restoration of liberty pending a proper hearing. The ruling aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent emphasizing individualized bond determinations and limits the government's ability to rely on past criminal convictions—already adjudicated—as a substitute for constitutionally required process.