Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ricardo Antonio Erazo Melgar, proceeding through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 22, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Three days later he moved for a temporary restraining order. The court set a briefing schedule and directed the respondent to address whether anything distinguished the case from several prior decisions by the same court, and to state any opposition to the court ruling on the petition based on the existing briefing.
On August 27, 2026, the respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that the petitioner was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because the government had provided all process required by that statute and its implementing regulations. The respondent did not oppose the court ruling directly on the merits. The respondent's own evidence established that the petitioner had previously been encountered by immigration authorities and was re-detained by ICE officers on or about August 17, 2026, without prior notice or a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator at which a change in circumstances was shown.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that the petitioner's re-detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. In light of the evidence that the petitioner had previously been encountered by immigration officials, the court incorporated the reasoning of its earlier decision in Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), and granted the petition, ordering the petitioner's immediate release.
The court ordered the respondent to release the petitioner on the same conditions, if any, that applied before his re-detention, and enjoined the respondent from re-detaining him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice or a hearing before an immigration judge at which the government would bear the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. The court denied the petitioner's request for attorneys' fees and costs without prejudice to renewal on a properly noticed and supported motion, denied the temporary restraining order motion as moot, denied the motion to dismiss, and directed the clerk to serve the order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, enter judgment for the petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detaining a previously encountered noncitizen without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral adjudicator violates due process, according to this court's application of its prior Cajina v. Wofford reasoning.
- The government did not oppose a direct merits ruling on the habeas petition, allowing the court to resolve the case on the existing briefing without further proceedings.
- The release order restored any pre-detention conditions and barred future re-detention absent exigent circumstances unless the government proves danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence at an immigration judge hearing.
- The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the grant of habeas relief provided the petitioner the release he sought.
- A request for attorneys' fees and costs was denied without prejudice, leaving the petitioner free to renew it through a properly noticed and supported motion.
Why It Matters
The order adds to a line of Eastern District of California decisions holding that ICE's practice of re-detaining noncitizens without notice or a hearing before a neutral adjudicator fails due process. By expressly incorporating Cajina v. Wofford, the court signaled that its prior analysis governs cases where the government re-detains someone previously encountered by immigration authorities without establishing a change in circumstances.
The relief granted is notable for its forward-looking component: the injunction not only freed the petitioner but also imposed a clear-and-convincing burden on the government at any future hearing, absent exigent circumstances. At the same time, the court left the fee question open, denying it without prejudice rather than resolving it on the merits.