Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hiep Ta, a self-represented immigration detainee, is a native and citizen of Vietnam who was admitted as a refugee in 1989 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1990. In 2006 he was served with a Notice to Appear alleging removability based on an August 2005 aggravated felony conviction for a drug trafficking offense. An immigration judge ordered him removed to Vietnam on April 5, 2006, and neither party appealed. Respondents represent that he was later released from immigration custody, although the circumstances are unclear.
ICE re-detained Ta on January 2, 2026, to effectuate removal. Ta says he had just finished a three-year sentence, and he has been held at the California City Detention Center since. On March 13, 2026, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued under Zadvydas v. Davis that detention beyond six months violated due process because removal was not reasonably foreseeable. On March 20 the magistrate judge ordered an answer and barred Ta's transfer outside the district.
Respondents answered and moved to dismiss all respondents except the immediate custodian, citing Doe v. Garland. They later obtained a Vietnamese travel document valid through January 31, 2027, and moved to lift the no-transfer order and to expedite that motion. Ta was warned that failing to respond could be treated as non-opposition, and he did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
These are findings and recommendations, not a final judgment. They go to District Judge Dena Coggins, and objections are due within 14 days. The magistrate judge first recommends denying the motion to dismiss the other respondents. Doe v. Garland held that a detainee challenging immigration detention must name his immediate custodian. It did not hold that he cannot name additional respondents, and it did not address who may be named when injunctive relief is sought alongside the challenge to physical confinement. Ta named his custodian and styled his filing as both a habeas petition and a request for injunctive relief, so dismissal of the others is not recommended.
On the merits, the magistrate judge recommends denying the petition. Ta has been detained more than nine months, past the six-month presumptively reasonable period, and respondents did not seriously dispute that. The question was whether Ta gave good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The record included a travel document from Vietnam, the country named in the removal order, and respondents' representation that they can lawfully remove him once the no-transfer order is lifted. Ta identified no other impediment. The court therefore could not conclude removal was unlikely, citing Oeun v. Golden State Annex and Singh v. Warden. The court treated grounds two and three, which concern third-country removal, as inapplicable. It did not consider ground four because Ta said he was not pursuing it.
Because Ta is not entitled to habeas relief, the magistrate judge recommends granting the motion to lift the no-transfer order and the motion to expedite, and directing the Clerk to close the case. The court found a shortened objection period warranted given the nature of the relief and the completeness of the briefing.
Key Takeaways
- Ta's detention passed the six-month presumptive period, but a travel document from the country of removal and an unrebutted representation that removal awaits only the lifting of a transfer bar defeated his Zadvydas claim at this stage.
- Doe v. Garland requires naming the immediate custodian, but this magistrate judge read it as not barring additional respondents where the petition also seeks injunctive relief.
- Ta did not oppose the motion to lift the no-transfer order despite a warning, and he identified no impediment to removal other than the passage of time.
- The decision is only a recommendation. Nothing is final until the district judge acts, and Ta may file objections within 14 days.
Why It Matters
The recommendations apply the Zadvydas burden-shifting framework in a common Eastern District of California posture. Once the government produces a travel document and says the only remaining barrier is the habeas court's own no-transfer order, a detainee who points to no other obstacle is unlikely to show that removal is not reasonably foreseeable. The reasoning rests on the unrebutted record and on other district decisions rather than on binding authority.
The ruling on the motion to dismiss is narrower than a broad rule about who may be named in immigration habeas petitions. It reflects one magistrate judge's reading of Doe on this record, and it remains subject to adoption by the district judge. If the recommendations are adopted, the court's transfer bar would be lifted and the case closed.