Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Reinaldo Jimenez Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico who had lived in the United States for at least 17 years, was placed in removal proceedings and applied for cancellation of removal before those proceedings were administratively closed in 2013. He remained in the country, started a family, and was the primary income earner for his family, which includes his mother, wife and five children. On May 19, 2026, upon his release from jail on a misdemeanor charge, ICE officers detained him, and he remained in immigration custody without a bond hearing before a neutral adjudicator.
On August 3, 2026, the court received Salazar's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along with a motion to appoint counsel. The magistrate judge liberally construed the petition to assert two due process violations—one based on prolonged detention and another based on the revocation of his prior release—and directed respondents to file a response addressing whether the case was distinguishable from a series of prior Eastern District of California decisions granting similar relief. Respondents filed a three-sentence response conceding there were no material factual or legal distinctions from those cited cases, while nevertheless asserting that petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and arguing that a bond hearing, rather than release, was the appropriate remedy.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Salazar's procedural due process rights were violated by the failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing in connection with the revocation of his release, adopting and incorporating the analysis from prior district decisions including Ayala Cajina, Mohammad S., Gonzalez, Estrada-Samayoa, Sergio S.M., and R.D.T.M. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found that Salazar had a substantial liberty interest based on his prior release, that the risk of erroneous deprivation without pre-deprivation procedures was high, and that the government's interest was low. The court also found a separate due process violation based on Salazar's prolonged detention for more than five months without a bond hearing, despite his entitlement to one under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the government's failure to assert he was a danger or flight risk; for that claim, the substantial liberty interest rested on his seventeen years of residence and family ties.
As to remedy, the magistrate judge joined the majority of judges in the district who have found that the failure to provide constitutionally mandated pre-deprivation procedures warrants release and an injunction against re-detention absent procedural protections, rather than merely ordering a bond hearing. The court recommended that the petition be granted on both due process claims, that Salazar be immediately released under the same conditions to which he was subject immediately prior to his re-detention with all documents and possessions returned, and that respondents be enjoined from re-detaining him unless they provide at least seven days' written notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decision maker at which the government bears the burden of demonstrating flight risk or danger. The court ordered denial of Salazar's motion to appoint counsel without prejudice, and recommended denial of his request for attorney's fees and costs because no attorney filed an appearance.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the habeas petition and ordering the immediate release of an immigration detainee who had been held for five months without a bond hearing, finding two distinct procedural due process violations under the Fifth Amendment.
- Respondents conceded that the case was not materially distinguishable from prior Eastern District of California decisions granting similar relief, while arguing for a bond hearing remedy based on petitioner's criminal history.
- The court rejected a bond hearing as the sole remedy, instead joining the majority of judges in the district who have held that release with an injunction against re-detention absent constitutional procedures is the proper remedy for such due process violations.
- The magistrate judge declined to consider new Fourth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act claims raised in a supplemental filing because the petitioner had not sought or been granted leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
- The findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge with a shortened three-day objection period, given the nature of the relief at issue.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to a growing body of Eastern District of California case law holding that immigration detainees who were previously released or never detained despite the government's awareness of their presence have a protected liberty interest, and that re-detention without pre-deprivation procedures violates procedural due process. The recommendation of immediate release rather than a belated bond hearing reflects an emerging consensus among judges in the district that anything short of release would effectively rubber stamp constitutionally unlawful government conduct.
The case also illustrates the practical consequences of the government's concession strategy: by failing to distinguish prior adverse decisions, respondents effectively conceded the legal framework, leaving only the remedy as a contested issue. The shortened three-day objection period signals the court's recognition that prolonged detention pending resolution of objections would compound the constitutional harm.