Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Erick Ramiro Alonso-Pratt, a noncitizen previously released into the United States in 2022, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. He was re-detained on September 22, 2026. The court explained that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the country are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
The court had previously addressed these issues in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, D.L.C. v. Wofford, and Altin v. Chestnut, holding that the Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole. On October 29, 2026, the court asked the parties whether they opposed simultaneous resolution of the TRO motion and the habeas petition, and directed Respondents to identify any factual or legal issues materially distinguishing the case from those prior orders.
Respondents filed their opposition on November 2, 2026. They opposed the motion but identified no distinguishing factual or legal issues. They pointed to Petitioner's recent criminal activity after his 2022 release but did not argue or explain why that history rendered inapplicable the court's prior determination that previously released noncitizens are entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before re-detention. Respondents also stated they had no objection to the court ruling on the underlying petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both the motion for a temporary restraining order and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It found that Respondents failed to demonstrate that Petitioner's criminal history mitigated his due process right to a pre-deprivation bond hearing, noting that numerous courts within the Ninth Circuit, including this court, have held that due process requires such a hearing even where a noncitizen is detained in relation to criminal charges, citing Yi Yang v. Warden, Jose M.R. v. Warden, Jean J.D. v. Warden, and A.S. v. Hernandez.
Because Respondents made no new legal arguments and identified no distinguishing issues, the court granted the relief for the reasons set forth in its prior order in Altin v. Chestnut, where the proper remedy for the government's failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing is the petitioner's immediate release. Because Petitioner was proceeding pro se and the court was granting the relief he sought, the court declined to await a reply that would only delay that relief.
The court ordered that Petitioner be released immediately from Respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention on September 22, 2026, and that Respondents impose no additional restriction, such as electronic monitoring, unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. Respondents must return all of Petitioner's documents and possessions upon his release from custody, file a notice of compliance within three days from the date of entry of the order, and, if the government seeks to re-detain him, provide no less than seven days' notice to Petitioner and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which his eligibility for bond must be considered. The order expressly does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of it. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States who were previously released are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and are entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before the government may re-detain them.
- A detainee's criminal history does not eliminate the due process right to a pre-deprivation bond hearing unless the government develops a substantive argument explaining why that history justifies detention without one.
- When the government fails to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing, the appropriate remedy is the petitioner's immediate release under the same conditions that existed before the detention.
- A court may resolve a habeas petition and a temporary restraining order motion simultaneously, particularly where the petitioner is proceeding pro se and awaiting a reply would only delay the relief sought.
- Any future re-detention requires at least seven days' notice to the petitioner and a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which eligibility for bond must be considered.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces a growing body of decisions within the Eastern District of California and the Ninth Circuit holding that due process protects noncitizens previously released into the United States from being re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, and it confirms that the government cannot avoid that requirement simply by pointing to a detainee's criminal history without explaining why it justifies bypassing the hearing.
The decision also illustrates the court's willingness to resolve habeas petitions on an expedited basis where the government fails to distinguish controlling prior precedent, and it establishes clear compliance obligations including immediate release, return of personal documents, and advance notice before any future re-detention, while leaving open the distinct question of detention following an executable final order of removal.