Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dina Isabel Hernandez Orellana, a federal immigration detainee from El Salvador, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 14, 2026. At the time she filed, she was held at the ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, California. Three days after filing, respondents transferred her to the ICE El Paso Processing Center in El Paso, Texas, where she remained. She claimed that her detention violated procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, and sought immediate release from immigration custody and other injunctive relief.
According to the opinion, Hernandez Orellana entered the United States in or before March 2016, and ICE paroled her from immigration custody on March 26, 2016. She lived freely in the United States for more than ten years and alleged no material change in circumstances warranting re-detention. On October 4, 2026, ICE revoked her parole and re-detained her without providing notice, a reason for the arrest, or an opportunity to contest detention. United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym issued a briefing order on October 16, 2026, requiring respondents' notice of appearance by October 19, 2026, and an answer by October 23, 2026. As of the date of the order, respondents had not answered, otherwise responded, or appeared in the case.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Pym considered respondents' failure to comply with the briefing order as a concession that the relief requested in the petition be granted, rather than as an oversight. She cited several recent Central District of California decisions granting habeas relief after similar failures to oppose or appear, including Hakobyan v. Janecka, Lopez v. Warden of Adelanto ICE Processing Ctr., and Parmjeet v. Semaia. The court also noted its prior findings that individuals similarly situated to petitioner were entitled to immediate release from custody because they were re-detained in violation of their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. Given respondents' lack of opposition and failure to appear, and for the reasons set forth in those earlier decisions, the court granted the petition.
The court separately addressed Hernandez Orellana's post-petition transfer to Texas. It observed that no notice was given and that the transfer may have violated the briefing order's requirement that respondents give at least two court days' notice prior to removing petitioner from the district, but expressly did not decide that issue. Because petitioner apparently resided in the Central District of California and the transfer was at least inconsistent with the briefing order, the court required respondents to return petitioner to the district.
The operative order directed that judgment will be entered granting the petition, that respondents shall immediately return petitioner to the Central District of California, and that upon her return respondents shall immediately release her from immigration custody. Petitioner's conditions of release were to be the same as those in place prior to her most recent detention, with any confiscated property and documents returned upon release. Respondents were enjoined and restrained from re-detaining petitioner unless they demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner presented a flight risk or a danger to the community. A status report confirming return and release was due no later than November 3, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Magistrate Judge Pym considered the government's failure to appear, answer, or otherwise respond as a concession that the requested habeas relief should be granted.
- The petition was granted on due process grounds supported by the court's prior decisions concerning similarly situated immigration detainees who were re-detained after parole.
- The operative order directs that judgment will be entered granting the petition, and that respondents shall immediately return Hernandez Orellana to the Central District of California and then immediately release her from immigration custody under her previous conditions.
- Any future re-detention requires clear and convincing evidence of flight risk or danger to the community at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
- The court did not decide whether the Texas transfer violated its briefing order, although it found the transfer at least inconsistent with that order.
Why It Matters
The decision provides case-specific relief rather than a broad new rule: it combines respondents' procedural default with reasoning adopted from earlier decisions involving re-detention after parole. Its detailed order addresses not only release but also the petitioner's location, prior release conditions, confiscated property, and safeguards against renewed detention. The order was issued by a magistrate judge, and its operative relief is prospective: it directs that judgment will be entered and imposes return and release obligations, rather than itself entering a final judgment.
The ruling also shows the practical consequences of ignoring a habeas briefing schedule. At the same time, the court carefully left open whether the government's unnoticed transfer itself violated the briefing order, using the transfer's apparent inconsistency with that order and the petitioner's residence to support the return directive without resolving the separate violation question.