Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Leobardo Ramirez Gutierrez, a Mexican citizen representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California on September 28, 2026. He alleged that immigration authorities detained him on or about August 9, 2026, that he has no criminal record, and that he has never received a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker to assess danger or flight risk. The respondent, the warden of the California City immigration facility, answered on October 9, 2026, and did not contest those factual allegations. Petitioner filed no reply, so briefing was complete.
The petition challenged detention on three grounds: Fifth Amendment due process, unlawful arrest, and violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and due process. The government did not argue that petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community. Citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, it acknowledged that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs his detention, and argued that he is entitled to seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. The matter was decided by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302(c)(17) and referred to a district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that petitioner is detained under § 1226(a), relying on Rodriguez Vazquez, which held that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to the detention regime of § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A). The findings note that the majority of courts nationwide, including circuit courts and courts in this district, have rejected the government's contrary reading. Because regulations give people detained under § 1226(a) bond hearings at the outset of detention, the court reasoned that petitioner should have received one.
On that basis the court recommends granting the petition on the statutory claim in claim three and does not reach the other claims, since that ruling entitles petitioner to the relief he seeks. It recommends that respondent be ordered to release petitioner immediately, give him a copy of the release order, and return any personal documents in its custody. It also recommends an injunction barring re-detention unless the government shows, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he is a flight risk or danger. That injunction expressly does not reach detention under other authority such as § 1226(c) or § 1231.
The court further recommends a status report from respondent within seven days after adoption, and entry of judgment and closure of the case. These are only recommendations. Objections are due within seven days, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Nothing is ordered until the district judge acts.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge recommended that a person apprehended in the interior without admission be treated as held under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), following Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- Because § 1226(a) detainees receive bond hearings at the outset under federal regulations, the court treated the absence of any hearing as the basis for recommending immediate release rather than merely a hearing.
- The recommended injunction places the burden on the government to prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence before any re-detention, but it does not address detention under § 1226(c) or § 1231.
- The court did not decide the due process, unlawful arrest, or other claims, so those questions remain open.
- The document is a report and recommendation: it takes effect only if adopted by the district judge, and the parties have seven days to object.
Why It Matters
The report adds to a growing body of Eastern District of California rulings applying Rodriguez Vazquez to reject the government's attempt to treat long-present interior arrestees as applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention. The recommended remedy is notable because it goes beyond a bond hearing: it seeks outright release, with the burden then placed on the government under a clear and convincing standard before any re-detention. The government's position that a custody redetermination before an immigration judge suffices was not accepted.
Its weight is limited. It is an unreported magistrate judge's recommendation, not a final judgment, and carries no precedential force; it matters mainly as a persuasive example of how courts apply the circuit rule. Whether the district judge adopts the recommended release and injunction, and whether the government objects, remain open. Because the court avoided the constitutional claims, the decision says nothing about the due process arguments.