Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Artemio Mungia Zejada, a native and citizen of Mexico, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 17, 2026, after a February 5, 2026 arrest for threatening crime with intent to terrorize under California Penal Code § 422(a). Served a notice to appear that day, he was not — the court found — given an arrest warrant or a notice of custody determination at arrest; the custody determination notice came only on August 5, 2026, about five months into his detention.
In an earlier petition, Mungia Zejada I, the government argued he was an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and falsely claimed he had sought no immigration relief until after being taken into custody; it later acknowledged a denied March 1, 2007 nonimmigrant visa application. On August 5, 2026, the court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days; on August 18, 2026, an immigration judge denied release, finding him an unacceptable danger to the community and a substantial flight risk.
On October 8, 2026, Mungia Zejada filed this second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release, alleging his continued detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The government opposed on abuse-of-writ grounds and defended the detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) but did not oppose the court ruling directly on the merits. The case was deemed related to the first petition and reassigned to the undersigned judge on October 16, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the abuse-of-writ defense twice over. Cause and prejudice existed because the Ninth Circuit's intervening Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock decision confirmed that noncitizens detained in the interior of the United States face discretionary detention under § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b) — a shift the government's own briefing reflected. A miscarriage of justice also loomed because the government had mischaracterized the petitioner's immigration history in the first case, which the court had relied on in denying release.
On the merits, the court held the government violated due process by detaining Mungia Zejada without a pre-deprivation bond hearing. Under the court's decisions in Oliveira Tinoco v. Albarran and Polynice v. Chestnut, because the government knew of his presence in the United States since his 2007 visa application yet took no steps to detain or remove him, he held a liberty interest in continued freedom entitling him to a bond hearing before detention, with immediate release as the remedy. His detention also violated § 1226(a): he was arrested without a warrant, no exigent circumstances were alleged, and no notice of custody determination was issued upon arrest.
The court granted both the habeas petition and the TRO. It ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner; barred additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future custody hearing found them necessary; directed return of his documents and possessions; and provided that if the government seeks to re-detain him, it must give him a prompt bond hearing at which Petitioner bears the burden of showing he is not a flight risk or a risk to community safety. The court denied his other pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to serve the order on the detention facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- An intervening change in law — the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision confirming discretionary rather than mandatory detention for interior detainees — constitutes good cause for a successive habeas petition and defeats an abuse-of-writ defense.
- A government's mischaracterization of a petitioner's immigration history can establish the miscarriage-of-justice exception, especially where the court relied on that mischaracterization in denying earlier relief.
- When the government knows of a noncitizen's presence in the United States but takes no steps to detain or remove them, the noncitizen acquires a liberty interest entitling them to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before detention.
- Arresting a noncitizen without a warrant and failing to issue a notice of custody determination at arrest violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and, absent exigent circumstances, warrants immediate release.
- The remedy ordered was immediate release without conditions; if the government later seeks re-detention, the petitioner bears the burden at the required bond hearing of showing he is not a flight risk or a danger to community safety.
Why It Matters
This order extends a developing line of Eastern District of California decisions — Oliveira Tinoco, Polynice, Barrientos, and Aguilar Moreno — holding that noncitizens known to the government but left at liberty cannot be detained without a pre-deprivation bond hearing, and that procedural failures under § 1226(a) require release. It shows district courts applying Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to grant habeas relief to interior detainees previously treated as subject to mandatory detention.
The decision is also notable for its abuse-of-writ analysis: an intervening change in controlling law and the government's own inaccurate factual assertions can each independently open the door to a successive petition, and the court corrected course after its earlier ruling rested on a mischaracterized record.