Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Abdulfattah Ibrahim Abubakar Salih, a federal immigration detainee proceeding through counsel, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his re-detention on or about October 31, 2025. 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 1, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6) recommending that the petition be granted, concluding that Salih's re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing violated due process. The recommendations also addressed prospective re-detention and noted that Salih was presently in removal proceedings.
The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that any objections were due within seven days after service. On October 8, 2026, respondents Christopher Chestnut et al. filed objections (Doc. No. 7), but limited their stated objection to the extent the recommendations would enjoin the government from re-detaining Salih if he became the subject of a final order of removal. The magistrate judge had recommended enjoining respondents from re-detaining Salih absent notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator. The district court therefore conducted de novo review of the recommendations and the objection under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected respondents' objections. Relying on its earlier decision in Singh v. Chestnut, it explained that modifying an injunction to account for a future removal order that may or may not be obtained is inappropriate. Salih was not subject to a final order of removal, and there was no indication respondents would obtain one for him; it was unknown whether he would be ordered removed or the timeline on which any hypothetical order would become final. The court therefore concluded it was premature to modify the recommended prohibition on re-detention to the extent it would affect a hypothetical future re-detention based on a final removal order not yet realized. After de novo review of the entire file under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis and adopted them.
The court granted the habeas petition. It ordered respondents to immediately release Salih from custody on the same conditions, if any, he was subject to prior to his re-detention on or about October 31, 2025. It enjoined and restrained respondents from re-detaining Salih for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge, at which respondents bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Salih is either a danger or a flight risk. The court denied Salih's request for attorneys' fees without prejudice to renewal on a properly noticed and supported motion, directed the Clerk to serve a copy of the order on the California City Processing Center, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Salih and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations after de novo review and granted Salih's § 2241 habeas petition.
- Respondents' objection concerning a possible final order of removal failed because no such order existed and its future issuance and timing were unknown, making modification of the injunction premature.
- The release order restored the conditions, if any, under which Salih had been held before his re-detention on or about October 31, 2025.
- Future re-detention is barred absent exigent circumstances unless respondents provide written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge and prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The attorneys' fee request was denied without prejudice, leaving Salih able to renew it by a properly noticed and supported motion.
Why It Matters
The order converts the recommended due process ruling into specific, enforceable relief: immediate release and procedural protections against another detention. The injunction does more than require notice; it assigns respondents the burden at an immigration-judge hearing, sets clear and convincing evidence as the standard for establishing danger or flight risk, and preserves an exception for exigent circumstances.
The court's treatment of respondents' objection also defines the present scope of the dispute. It declined to reshape the injunction around a hypothetical final removal order while removal proceedings remained pending and no final order existed, so the ruling grants the recommended relief without deciding how a future removal order might affect re-detention. Separately, the without-prejudice fee denial leaves that request open for a compliant later motion rather than resolving it on the merits.