Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wilberth Antonio Montano Matamoros, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 20, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were due within seven days.
Respondent, the Warden of the California Detention Center, objected on October 27, 2026, relying on the arguments stated in its answer. The district court observed that those arguments had already been addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned judge in other cases. The court therefore reviewed the file, presuming the magistrate judge's findings of fact correct under Orand v. United States and reviewing conclusions of law de novo under Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School District.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in part: it adopted the recommendation that the petition be granted and the petitioner ordered released, but declined to adopt the remaining findings because it found the reasoning of Cuenca-Pucha v. Andrews more appropriate on these facts. It granted the petition on due process grounds as to Count One. The court explained that the Due Process Clause requires the government, before re-detaining a noncitizen previously released on bond or conditional parole who is not being re-detained under a final order of removal, to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the noncitizen's eligibility for bond must be considered, citing Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, and Cuenca-Pucha v. Andrews.
The operative directives ordered that Petitioner be released immediately from Respondent's custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention in August 2026, and that Respondent not impose any additional restriction, such as electronic monitoring, unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. Respondent must return all of Petitioner's documents and possessions upon release and file a notice of compliance within three days. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must give no less than seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter. The order expressly does not address detention if Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of it. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen previously released on bond or conditional parole cannot be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter when no final removal order is the basis for the re-detention.
- The district court granted the habeas petition on due process grounds while adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations only in part, preferring the reasoning of Cuenca-Pucha v. Andrews.
- Release was ordered immediately on the same conditions Petitioner was subject to immediately prior to his August 2026 detention, and added restrictions such as electronic monitoring require a future necessity determination at a hearing.
- Any future re-detention effort requires at least seven days' notice to Petitioner and consideration of his bond eligibility at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The decision leaves open the government's authority to detain Petitioner after an executable final order of removal and notice of that order.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the court's due process framework to immigration re-detention and makes the required procedural protection concrete: advance notice and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker at which bond eligibility must be considered. It also illustrates the district court's de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendations, selecting the reasoning of Cuenca-Pucha rather than adopting all of the findings while agreeing with the recommended release.
The relief is carefully bounded. It restores the release conditions in effect immediately before the August 2026 detention, requires return of identity and work documents, and bars new monitoring conditions absent a later hearing determination, but it does not decide detention following an executable final removal order. The compliance notice and service requirements provide specific mechanisms for implementing and verifying the release.