Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angelo E., proceeding without a lawyer, petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from immigration detention at the California City facility. According to the magistrate judge's findings, which no party contested, he entered the United States without inspection in December 2020, was released by immigration authorities after removal proceedings began, and lived at liberty for nearly six years while pursuing temporary protected status. ICE detained him in August 2026 and he received no bond hearing. Removal proceedings remain pending. The government argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governed his detention, but it acknowledged the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), and conceded he was entitled to a bond hearing.
The petition was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued findings and recommendations on October 14, 2026, recommending that it be granted. The parties had seven days to object, and neither did. The district judge therefore presumed the factual findings correct, reviewed the legal conclusions de novo, and found the recommendations supported by the record and the magistrate judge's analysis. This is an unreported release order and not a published opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition. The order itself is brief, so its reasoning comes from the adopted findings. Those findings concluded that under Rodriguez Vazquez a person present without admission who is arrested in the interior is detained under § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), and that the government had not invoked mandatory detention under § 1226(c). They further found that nearly six years at liberty after release gave the petitioner a protected liberty interest, and they applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, which the Ninth Circuit has assumed without deciding governs immigration detention.
All three Mathews factors favored the petitioner. His interest in freedom was strong. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high because the government identified no changed circumstances and a later bond hearing would place the burden on him. The government, which did not argue that he was dangerous or a flight risk, would bear only minimal cost from providing a hearing first. The findings concluded that detaining him without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process and warranted release.
The court ordered respondents to release him immediately on the same conditions as his prior release, return his documents and possessions, and file a notice of compliance within two court days. It enjoined respondents from re-detaining him while he is subject to § 1226(a) unless they comply with statutory and constitutional protections, including at least seven days' notice and a hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring his appearance outweighs his liberty interest and that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk. He may have counsel present. The court cited Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions with a 'See' signal, directed service on the facility, and ordered judgment entered for the petitioner and the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations in full, so the earlier findings are now a final order granting habeas relief and entering judgment for the petitioner.
- The order treats an interior arrest of a person present without admission as governed by § 1226(a), consistent with Rodriguez Vazquez, even though the government initially invoked § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Nearly six years at liberty after a prior release supported a protected liberty interest, and the court held that re-detention required a hearing beforehand and not a later bond hearing at which the detainee carries the burden.
- Any future re-detention while the petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) requires at least seven days' notice and a neutral-factfinder hearing where the government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, with counsel present.
- The order is unreported, and the injunction by its terms covers only the period the petitioner is subject to § 1226(a); it does not address detention under any other authority.
Why It Matters
This order converts a magistrate judge's recommendation into enforceable relief with a concrete forward-looking remedy. The injunction goes beyond ordering a bond hearing, because it conditions any re-detention on advance notice, a neutral decisionmaker, a heightened burden on the government, and the right to counsel. It adds to a line of Eastern District of California decisions requiring pre-deprivation process before ICE re-detains people it previously released.
Its weight is limited. It is an unpublished district court order in a single habeas case, and its due process analysis rests on a Mathews framework the Ninth Circuit has only assumed applies. Whether the government may later justify detention on changed circumstances, such as pending criminal charges, was not decided, and the order does not address what happens if a final removal order becomes executable.