Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Amado Lopez Nolasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of California on September 28, 2026, and referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney under Local Rule 302(c)(17) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court considered the petition, respondents' response to the transferring court's show-cause order, and the most recent available I-213 form, concluding that no further briefing was necessary.
According to the findings and recommendations, ICE detained Nolasco on September 6, 2026, following a traffic stop. He remained continuously in custody without an individualized bond hearing. He sought release or, alternatively, a prompt individualized hearing on his continued detention. Respondents did not oppose his request for a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
The October 15, 2026 document was a recommendation, not an adopted district-court judgment. It proposed granting the petition, denying Nolasco's motion for appointed counsel as moot, requiring a bond hearing within fourteen days of adoption, and directing entry of judgment and closure of the case. The parties were given five days after service to object, with responses due five days after service of objections.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge explained that habeas relief is available to a person held in violation of the Constitution or federal law and that district-court habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention. Because Nolasco was apprehended in the interior of the United States, the court applied 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. Section 1226(a) gives the government discretion to detain or release, accompanied by procedural protections including review of custody decisions and an initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
The court found that respondents violated § 1226(a) by failing to provide Nolasco an opportunity for individualized immigration-judge review of his custody for more than a month after his September 6 detention. It therefore concluded that habeas relief was warranted. Given the statute's discretionary detention framework and the absence of evidence that Nolasco had previously been released on bond under § 1226(a), the recommended remedy was an order requiring a bond hearing rather than a recommendation for immediate release.
The recommendation directed that the hearing occur before an immigration judge within fourteen days after adoption of the findings and recommendations. It also recommended denying the counsel motion as moot and closing the case after judgment. Those measures remained contingent on district-judge action; the document expressly submitted the findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge and preserved the objection process.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge treated 8 U.S.C. § 1226 as the governing detention authority because Nolasco was apprehended inside the United States.
- More than a month without individualized immigration-judge review of custody was found to violate § 1226(a) and warrant habeas relief.
- The proposed remedy was a bond hearing within fourteen days of adoption, not an order immediately releasing Nolasco from custody.
- The motion for appointment of counsel was recommended for denial as moot in connection with the proposed habeas relief.
- The recommendations required district-judge adoption, and the document warned that failing to object on time could waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Ninth Circuit's interior-apprehension distinction to an immigration-detention habeas petition and identifies individualized bond review as the appropriate statutory remedy on the record presented. Respondents' lack of opposition to a bond hearing and the absence of evidence of an earlier § 1226(a) bond release were part of the specific posture before the court.
The document's immediate legal effect is limited by its posture: it recommends relief and case closure but does not itself report adoption, entry of judgment, or completion of a bond hearing. Its five-day objection schedule and waiver warning are therefore important to understanding what remained open.