Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dionadios Francisco Pedro-Mateo filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The petition was docketed as Document 1 and the restraining-order motion as Document 3 in the Eastern District of California. The court's order identified the governing detention framework: noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). It cited Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock for that proposition.
The court explained that its prior decisions had addressed the legal issues raised by Pedro-Mateo's petition. Those decisions held that the Due Process Clause requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, with consideration of bond eligibility, before the government re-detains a noncitizen previously released on bond or conditional parole under § 1226(a), or on humanitarian parole under § 1182(d)(5). The order cited Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, D.L.C., and Altin as prior grants of temporary restraining orders, habeas relief, or both on due-process grounds.
The Court’s Holding
On October 27, 2026, the court issued a notice informing the parties that it was considering ruling directly on the habeas petition and asking whether either side opposed simultaneous resolution of the petition and restraining-order motion; that notice was not the merits order. The signed order itself is dated November 2, 2026 and was filed November 3, 2026. The October 27 notice also directed respondents to identify factual or legal issues materially distinguishing this case from Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, and D.L.C. Respondents opposed the motion and petition on October 30 but identified no material distinction and stated that they had no objection to a ruling on the underlying habeas petition. Because Pedro-Mateo was proceeding pro se and the court was granting the requested relief, it did not wait for a reply that would delay that relief.
The court granted both the petition and the restraining-order motion for the reasons set forth in its order in Altin, finding no new legal argument or material factual or legal distinction. As in Altin, it held that the proper remedy for the failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing was immediate release. Pedro-Mateo was to be released under the same conditions that applied immediately before his October 13, 2026 detention, with no additional restriction such as electronic monitoring unless found necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. Respondents also had to return his documents and possessions and file a notice confirming compliance within three days from the date of entry of this order.
Any government effort to re-detain Pedro-Mateo requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which his bond eligibility must be considered. The order expressly left open detention circumstances if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order and receives notice of it. Pending motions at Documents 2 and 4 were denied as moot. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, enter judgment for Pedro-Mateo, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court resolved the habeas petition itself, not merely the request for temporary emergency relief, and directed entry of judgment for Pedro-Mateo.
- Immediate release was the remedy for re-detention without the constitutionally required pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- Release must restore the conditions in place immediately before the October 13 detention, and additional restrictions require a necessity determination at a future hearing.
- Before seeking to re-detain Pedro-Mateo, the government must give at least seven days' notice and hold a hearing at which his eligibility for bond is considered.
- The order did not decide detention issues arising after an executable final order of removal and notice of that order.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the court's established due-process framework to another immigration re-detention case and treats the absence of any material distinction from its earlier rulings as decisive. Respondents' opposition did not supply a new legal argument, and their lack of objection to a merits ruling allowed the court to grant final habeas relief without awaiting a pro se reply. The disposition therefore combined immediate release with judgment and case closure rather than leaving the petition pending.
The relief is specific and forward-looking: it restores prior release conditions, requires return of property, sets a compliance-reporting deadline, and imposes notice and hearing requirements for any attempted re-detention. At the same time, the court preserved the distinct question of detention following an executable final removal order. That express limitation defines the scope of the judgment without deciding circumstances not presented by this order.