Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alberto Escamilla-Santiago, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 14, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Along with the petition, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for a temporary restraining order, and a motion to appoint counsel. Two days later, 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 merits based on the existing briefing.
The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that Escamilla-Santiago was lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was entitled to request a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. The respondent did not object to the court deciding the merits on the current briefing. The court found that Escamilla-Santiago last entered the United States in 2021 without inspection, was transferred from local custody to ICE custody on or about August 5, 2026, and that same day received an initial custody determination that he should remain detained during his removal proceedings. The Form I-826 served on him reflected that he requested a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the two-step procedural due process framework. At the first step, it concluded that Escamilla-Santiago had a protected liberty interest in freedom from detention, emphasizing that he had resided in the United States for over five years and financially supported his family in this country. At the second step, the court weighed the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors and found all three favored the petitioner: his private interest in freedom from months of custody was strong; the risk of erroneous deprivation was significant because he requested a custody redetermination hearing on August 5, 2026, yet there was no evidence he received one by the time he filed his petition on September 14, 2026; and the government's interest was low where the petitioner did not promptly receive an initial custody determination that he is statutorily entitled to, especially since custody hearings in immigration court are routine and impose minimal cost.
Relying on Ninth Circuit authority that a delayed custody hearing is inadequate to protect due process rights, the court concluded that Escamilla-Santiago was entitled to habeas relief. It granted the petition, ordered the respondent to release him immediately, and enjoined the respondent from re-detaining him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge at which the burden would be set in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court also granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied the motions for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel as moot, directed the clerk to serve the order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, and directed entry of judgment in the petitioner's favor.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who has lived in the United States for over five years and supports a family here has a protected liberty interest in freedom from ICE detention under the Due Process Clause.
- Waiting more than five weeks for a requested custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge creates a risk of erroneous deprivation that weighs heavily in the due process analysis.
- The government's interest in detention is diminished where the detainee has not promptly received the statutorily entitled initial custody determination, and immigration court custody hearings are routine with minimal administrative cost.
- A district court may order immediate release and enjoin re-detention for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without a pre-detention hearing when an ICE detainee's procedural due process rights have been violated by an unreasonably delayed custody hearing.
- Motions for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel become moot once the court grants the underlying habeas petition and orders release.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to a growing body of Eastern District of California rulings holding that ICE detainees who do not promptly receive requested custody redetermination hearings are entitled to habeas relief, including immediate release. It reinforces that the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test favors detainees who have established lives in the United States and who face prolonged detention without a hearing.
The order's injunction against re-detention for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge provides meaningful prospective protection, signaling that courts will not merely order release but will also impose procedural safeguards to prevent repeated violations.