Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pedro Luis Bravo Morillo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order. He had previously been released from immigration custody and was later detained on March 21, 2026. The government argued he remained subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
The court had previously ruled in a series of cases that the Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining a noncitizen who had been released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole. The government opposed the motion, relying on the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Padilla v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement to argue that, as a parolee, the petitioner was subject to the 'entry fiction' doctrine and had no due process rights beyond what the statute provides.
On October 2, 2026, the previously assigned district judge informed the parties that the court intended to rule directly on the petition and the temporary restraining order motion and directed the respondents to answer within two days. The respondents filed their opposition on October 6, 2026, and did not oppose the court ruling on the merits of the habeas petition simultaneously with the temporary restraining order motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the government's interpretation of Padilla, explaining that the Ninth Circuit expressly limited the entry fiction doctrine to admission cases, not detention cases. The court emphasized that Padilla itself distinguished between the executive's plenary power over admission and the longstanding principle that the government cannot arbitrarily detain people, including noncitizens. Because the petitioner challenged the lawfulness of his detention rather than his admissibility, Padilla did not diminish his due process rights.
Finding no factual or legal distinctions from its prior decisions, the court granted both the habeas petition and the temporary restraining order as to Count One, the due process claim. The court ordered the petitioner's immediate release under the same conditions that existed immediately before his detention on March 21, 2026, and directed Respondents to return all of his documents and possessions upon release. The court also required the government to provide at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before any future re-detention.
The court further directed Respondents to file a notice of compliance within three days confirming the petitioner's release, and directed the Clerk of the Court to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility and to enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case. The court declined to address the petition's remaining grounds and expressly left open the circumstances governing detention if the petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that the Ninth Circuit's Padilla decision applies the entry fiction doctrine only to admission cases and does not strip noncitizens of due process protections against arbitrary detention.
- A noncitizen who was previously released on parole cannot be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The court ordered the petitioner's immediate release and directed Respondents not to impose any additional restriction, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing.
- The government must give at least seven days' notice and hold a bond hearing before attempting to re-detain the petitioner.
- The court resolved the case on the due process claim alone and did not reach the petition's other grounds for relief.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a growing body of district court authority within the Ninth Circuit holding that the Padilla ruling does not eliminate due process protections for noncitizens facing re-detention after release on parole. By ordering immediate release and judgment in the petitioner's favor, the court underscored that the government's failure to provide a constitutionally adequate bond hearing warrants the most direct form of habeas relief.
The ruling also demonstrates the court's willingness to decide habeas petitions on an expedited basis when the petitioner is proceeding without counsel and the legal issues have already been settled by prior decisions, ensuring that detainees are not held longer than necessary while awaiting a reply brief.