Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pedro Bonilla Urbina, who represents himself, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention at the California City Detention Facility and moved for a temporary restraining order. He was detained on August 3, 2026. Count One asserts a due process claim. The court had addressed the legal issues in that count in earlier orders, including Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, D.L.C. v. Wofford, and Altin v. Chestnut, requiring a pre-deprivation bond hearing before re-detaining a noncitizen previously released on bond or parole.
On September 30, 2026, the court told the parties it was considering ruling on the petition together with the restraining order motion and asked Respondents to identify anything materially distinguishing this case from those orders. Respondents pointed to Petitioner's July 9, 2026 conviction for failure to stop at the command of police, his July 18, 2026 conviction for operating a vehicle without insurance, and an alleged pending drug paraphernalia charge, attaching an FBI RAP sheet. They also invoked Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland. They did not oppose simultaneous resolution.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition and the restraining order motion on Count One. It noted that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). Finding that Respondents made no new legal arguments and identified no factual or legal issue materially distinguishing the case, it granted relief for the reasons stated in Altin.
The court found that Respondents neither argued nor explained why Petitioner's criminal history made its prior due process determination inapplicable. Citing decisions from within the Ninth Circuit, it observed that due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing even where a noncitizen is detained in relation to criminal charges, particularly when the government offers no argument tying the record to the detention. It also rejected reliance on Rodriguez Diaz, quoting a Northern District of California decision that the Ninth Circuit held only that no second bond hearing is required when the sole change is the duration of detention.
Petitioner must be released immediately on the same conditions that applied before his August 3, 2026 detention, with no added restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future pre-deprivation hearing finds them 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. The order does not address detention after an executable final order of removal. The court did not reach other grounds and directed entry of judgment and closure of the case.
Key Takeaways
- In this court's view, the Due Process Clause 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.
- Pointing to a criminal record, without explaining how it affects the due process analysis, did not persuade the court that a pre-deprivation hearing could be skipped.
- The court read Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland narrowly, as addressing only a second bond hearing based on the passage of time, not a right to a hearing before re-detention.
- Immediate release on the prior conditions was the remedy, and any future re-detention requires seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
- The order leaves open detention following an executable final order of removal and does not decide the petition's other grounds.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order entered as a judgment in a single case, and it does not bind other courts. It shows how the Eastern District of California applies its earlier due process decisions when the government's only distinguishing point is a petitioner's recent criminal history. It relies on persuasive authority from other district courts rather than any controlling appellate holding on that question.
The court's reasoning rests substantially on the government's failure to develop an argument connecting the record to the detention. The order does not say how a more fully developed showing would be assessed. Open issues include the petition's remaining counts, any future re-detention after notice and a hearing, and detention under a final removal order.