Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Lorenzo Trujillo Mijares, an immigration detainee represented by counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility. 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 22, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within seven days. Respondents filed objections on October 29, 2026, reiterating arguments from their answer that the petitioner is lawfully detained under a final order of removal and that the government has authority to execute that order.
The district court noted that the respondents' arguments had already been addressed by the magistrate judge in this case and by the district court in prior decisions, including Hoac v. Becerra, Vuong v. Becerra, and Gonzalez v. Warden, Cal. City Immigration Processing Ctr. Those cases held that the government's detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) does not displace its obligation to follow the procedural protections of 8 U.S.C. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i) when revoking a noncitizen's release to effectuate removal under a prior final order. The court found no basis to reject the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full. It granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered: (a) the petitioner's immediate release from custody with the same conditions he was subject to before his current detention, with no additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless justified at a future pre-deprivation hearing; (b) the return of all the petitioner's documents and possessions upon release; (c) the filing of a notice of compliance within three days confirming release; and (d) an injunction barring re-detention absent compliance with constitutional protections, including the revocation procedures under 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13, 241.4, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The clerk was directed to serve the order on the detention facility and to enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case.
The court reviewed the magistrate judge's factual findings under a presumption of correctness and reviewed the legal conclusions de novo. It found the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. The respondents' objections, which relied on the government's authority to detain under a final removal order and the anticipated execution of removal, were rejected because they did not address the procedural protections required before revoking a noncitizen's release.
Key Takeaways
- The court reaffirmed that detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) does not excuse the government from complying with the procedural safeguards of 8 U.S.C. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i) when revoking a noncitizen's release to carry out a prior removal order.
- The magistrate judge's findings and recommendations were adopted after de novo review of legal conclusions and a presumption of correctness for factual findings, with the court finding them supported by the record.
- The petitioner is entitled to immediate release under the same conditions as before his current detention, and the government may not impose new restrictions such as electronic monitoring without a future pre-deprivation hearing.
- The government must return all of the petitioner's documents and possessions upon release and file a notice of compliance within three days.
- An injunction bars the government from re-detaining the petitioner unless it complies with the full procedural requirements for revocation of release under 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13 and 241.4 and other applicable law.
Why It Matters
This order continues a line of decisions in the Eastern District of California holding that the government must follow specific regulatory procedures before revoking a noncitizen's release to effectuate removal, even when a final removal order exists. The ruling reinforces that statutory detention authority is not self-executing and is subject to procedural due process and regulatory constraints. The immediate-release remedy and the injunction against re-detention without compliance provide a concrete enforcement mechanism for those protections.