Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Ernesto Arias Diaz, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The order refers to his detention beginning in July 2026 and to a due process claim in Count One that the court had already addressed in earlier cases. In those cases, including Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, D.L.C. v. Wofford, and Altin v. Chestnut, the court held that due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government re-detains a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole.
On September 30, 2026, the court asked the parties whether they opposed deciding the restraining order motion and the petition together. It also directed Respondents to identify any factual or legal issue distinguishing the earlier orders. Respondents opposed on the same grounds the court had previously rejected, but acknowledged that this case fits the group in which the petitioner's earlier parole into the United States mattered more than the manner of entry. They also described the case as one in which the court has ordered bond hearings in some criminal-history cases. They did not argue why that history made the earlier ruling inapplicable here.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the restraining order motion and the habeas petition as to Count One, for the reasons stated in Altin. Respondents offered no new legal argument and no distinguishing issue. On criminal history, the court held that Respondents failed to show it lessened Petitioner's right to a pre-deprivation hearing. It observed that courts in the Ninth Circuit, including decisions from this district and the Western District of Washington, have required such hearings even where a noncitizen is allegedly detained in connection with criminal charges, particularly when the government does not connect that history to the detention. Because Petitioner is proceeding without counsel and would receive the relief he sought, the court did not wait for a reply brief.
As in Altin, the court found immediate release to be the proper remedy. Petitioner must be released under the same conditions that applied before his July 2026 detention, with no added restriction such as electronic monitoring unless a later pre-deprivation or custody hearing finds it necessary. Respondents must return his documents and possessions and file a notice of compliance within three days. Any re-detention requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter who considers bond eligibility. The court did not address detention if Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final removal order. It did not reach the petition's other grounds, denied two other pending motions as moot, directed entry of judgment for Petitioner, and closed the case.
Key Takeaways
- This court requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole.
- Pointing to criminal history without explaining how it bears on detention without a hearing did not persuade the court to excuse the hearing.
- The remedy was immediate release with the prior conditions restored, not merely a hearing while Petitioner remained detained.
- Re-detention remains possible after seven days' notice and a hearing, and detention under an executable final removal order was expressly left open.
- Only Count One was decided, and the petition's other claims were not reached.
Why It Matters
This is a single district court order, not a published appellate opinion, and it carries persuasive weight at most. It shows how the court handles repeat cases: where the government concedes similarity to earlier rulings and offers no distinguishing argument, the court may decide the restraining order request and the merits together and order release without awaiting a reply.
The ruling rests on the government's failure to develop a criminal-history argument, so it does not decide what showing, if any, would justify detention without a hearing. It also does not resolve the other counts, any removal proceedings, or detention after a final removal order. The notice and neutral-arbiter requirements give a concrete framework for any future re-detention, though other courts may weigh these issues differently.