Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Duc Mai Bui, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California against the warden of the California City Detention Facility. According to the order, ICE detained him in April 2026 for removal proceedings in immigration court. On August 3, 2026, the immigration court ordered him removed, and the order states that he waived appeal, making the removal order final that day. He remains in ICE custody while the government works to carry out removal.
Bui argued that his immigration detention is prolonged and violates due process. The respondent moved to dismiss, pointing out that Bui remained within the 90-day removal period that follows a final order. Bui also separately asked the court to appoint counsel. The order sets out the general habeas standards: relief is available when custody violates federal law, the writ has long reviewed executive detention, and a district court's habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention. The matter was decided by a magistrate judge, whose findings and recommendations go to the assigned district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that the respondent's motion to dismiss be granted and that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. The reasoning was statutory timing. Although Bui was first detained for immigration court proceedings, the order concluded that detention authority shifted to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) on August 3, 2026, when the final removal order was entered. That provision calls for a mandatory detention period of 90 days for ICE to remove the person under the order. Because Bui was, as the respondent pointed out, still well within that period, the judge recommended dismissal. The order does not decide the merits of whether longer detention would violate due process.
The order notes in a footnote that neither party identified the authority under which ICE held Bui before the removal order, and the recommendation did not resolve that question. It also states that the court intends Bui be lawfully removed as soon as practicable, and that if he is not removed within the 90-day period, nothing in the order bars a new petition challenging prolonged detention and addressing whether removal is reasonably foreseeable. The recommendation further asks that the Clerk be ordered to enter judgment and close the case, which would occur only if the district judge adopts it.
Separately, the magistrate judge issued an actual order, not a recommendation, denying the motion to appoint counsel. The judge explained that there is no absolute right to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings, that counsel may be appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A if the interests of justice require, and that the judge did not find that standard met at present.
Key Takeaways
- The order treats a final removal order as shifting detention authority to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), which provides a 90-day removal period.
- A due process challenge to prolonged detention was recommended for dismissal without prejudice because the petitioner was still within that 90-day period, as the government argued.
- Dismissal is without prejudice, and the order expressly allows a new petition if removal does not occur within 90 days, including on whether removal is reasonably foreseeable.
- The denial of appointed counsel is an order, while the dismissal is only a recommendation that does not take effect unless the district judge adopts it.
- Objections are due within fourteen days of service, and failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's recommendation, not a published precedential decision, and it has no binding effect beyond this case unless the district judge adopts it. It illustrates how courts in the Eastern District of California may handle early habeas petitions from people with final removal orders: the court looks at the timing of the removal order and whether the 90-day statutory period has run before reaching the constitutional question.
What remains open is substantial. The order does not decide whether any detention beyond 90 days would be unlawful, whether removal is reasonably foreseeable, or what authority governed Bui's detention before August 3, 2026. Bui may object to the recommendation, and the district judge will make the final ruling on dismissal. Readers should treat the timing rationale as tied to the facts as the respondent presented them, not as a holding on the limits of immigration detention.