Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adan Galvez Hernandez, a noncitizen held at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 14, 2026, along with an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. He argued that ICE violated his constitutional procedural due process and statutory rights by detaining him without first providing adequate pre-detention notice and process. He consented to proceed before a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The court issued an expedited briefing schedule under General Order 26-05, requiring Respondents to answer within seven days and to file a notice of withdrawal of consent within 24 hours if a TRO accompanied the petition. Respondents never filed an answer, a withdrawal of consent, or any communication with the court. The court denied the TRO on September 22, 2026, and deemed the petition unopposed.
According to the petition, Hernandez entered the United States in 2019, was determined by ICE not to be a danger or flight risk, and had lived outside immigration custody on parole since August 19, 2019. He argued ICE revoked his parole without identifying any changed circumstance, gave no written notice of a specific reason for his detention, and afforded him no opportunity to contest it.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and ordered Respondents to release Hernandez immediately under the same conditions that applied before his current detention. It found that Hernandez had a protected due process interest in release, citing Zadvydas v. Davis for the principle that the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States regardless of the lawfulness of their presence, and Pinchi v. Noem for the substantial private interest in remaining in one's home, employment, and community.
Applying the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge framework, the court weighed the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation under the procedures used, and the government's interest. Because Respondents chose not to respond, the record contained no evidence or argument of a significant government interest in detention, and it was uncontroverted that Hernandez had complied with his release terms and posed no apparent flight risk or danger. The court concluded all Mathews factors favored Hernandez and that he had shown entitlement to relief on his procedural due process claim.
The court ordered Respondents to return Hernandez's personal belongings, including identification, work authorization, and other official documents, and to file a Notice of Release within three days confirming compliance. It also enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Hernandez absent strict compliance with due process and all applicable statutes and regulations. The request for appointment of counsel was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen who lived in the United States for roughly seven years on ICE parole has a protected procedural due process interest in remaining at liberty, and detention without notice of a specific reason or an opportunity to contest can violate that interest.
- When the government fails to respond to a habeas petition under an expedited briefing schedule, the court may deem the petition unopposed and treat the Mathews v. Eldridge factors as weighing entirely in the petitioner's favor.
- Relief included not only immediate release but restoration of prior release conditions, return of seized personal documents, and an injunction barring re-detention without strict compliance with due process and applicable law.
- The decision rested on the uncontroverted record; the court did not hold that every parole revocation requires pre-detention process, only that this petitioner made a sufficient showing absent any government opposition.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how district courts in the Central District of California are applying General Order 26-05's expedited habeas procedures to resolve immigration detention challenges quickly, and how a complete failure by the government to engage can leave the petitioner's allegations effectively uncontroverted.
It also adds to a growing body of decisions applying Mathews v. Eldridge to parole revocation and re-detention of long-residing noncitizens, signaling that ICE may need to provide specific notice and an opportunity to be heard before detaining individuals previously released on parole.