Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jonathan Rubelsi B.V., a federal immigration detainee held at the California Detention Center, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged detention without a bond hearing. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued findings and recommendations on October 23, 2026, concluding that Petitioner's detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because he had not received a custody determination hearing. Neither party objected to the magistrate judge's findings. While the petition was pending, the immigration court granted the government's motion to reopen removal proceedings and ordered Petitioner removed on October 13, 2026, with an appeal deadline of November 12, 2026.
The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. The court found the recommendations supported by the record but disagreed with the recommended relief. The magistrate judge had recommended a bond hearing, but the district court concluded that immediate release was the appropriate remedy given the months of unlawful detention without any hearing. The government conceded Petitioner was entitled to a custody determination hearing under § 1226(a) but had not provided one, and did not contend Petitioner was a danger to the community.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in part, granted the habeas petition on Count Two (violation of the INA) and Count Four (violation of the Due Process Clause), and ordered Respondent to immediately release Petitioner from custody. The court held that habeas corpus's core function is to secure release from illegal custody, citing Munaf v. Geren, Preiser v. Rodriguez, and Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that release is the only available remedy for claims at the writ's core. The court found Petitioner's civil immigration detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because he had been detained for months without the required custody determination hearing, and the government did not dispute his entitlement to such a hearing or assert he was dangerous.
The court further enjoined Respondent from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner while subject to § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections, including a minimum of seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified. The order requires return of Petitioner's documents and possessions at release, a notice of compliance within two court days, and directs the Clerk to serve the order, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered immediate release rather than a bond hearing as the remedy for months of detention without the custody determination hearing required by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- The government conceded the detainee was entitled to a § 1226(a) hearing but failed to provide one, and did not argue the detainee posed a danger to the community.
- The court cited Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority holding that release is the traditional and core remedy of habeas corpus for unlawful executive detention.
- The injunction against re-detention requires seven days' notice, a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, clear and convincing evidence standard, and the right to counsel at any future hearing.
- The court followed its own precedent in Dinesh S. v. Chestnut and other Eastern District of California cases ordering release where immigration detention violated the INA.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that prolonged immigration detention without a statutorily required bond hearing violates both the INA and due process, and that the appropriate remedy is release rather than a belated hearing. The court's injunction imposes specific procedural safeguards—seven days' notice, neutral factfinder, clear and convincing evidence standard, right to counsel—that exceed minimal statutory requirements and align with Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions.
The ruling adds to a growing body of Eastern District of California precedent holding that release is the proper remedy for detention that violates § 1226(a), rejecting the government's position that a delayed bond hearing cures the constitutional violation.