Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Carlos Giovanny M.R., proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged immigration detention. He is held by the Current or Acting Field Office Director of the San Francisco Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center. The petition alleged that his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)—which mandates detention for certain noncitizens with criminal convictions—without an individualized bond hearing violated his due process rights.
On September 17, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations concluding that the petition should be granted in part and that respondents should be directed to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing. The magistrate judge determined that Petitioner's detention had exceeded eight months, triggering due process protections. Respondents filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations on September 30, 2026. The district court conducted a de novo review of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), examining the entire record including the objections.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full. The court concluded that the findings were supported by the record and proper analysis, citing Singh v. Warden of Cal. City Corr. Ctr., a recent Eastern District of California decision applying Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), to hold that a petitioner detained for over eight months under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) is entitled to a bond hearing. The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus in part.
The court ordered respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of service of the order, unless Petitioner consents to a later date. The hearing must comply with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), requiring the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify denial of bond. If Petitioner is found not to be a danger or significant flight risk, the immigration judge must consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release per Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). The court also mandated specific procedural protections: 72-hour notice to Petitioner and counsel, Petitioner's right to appear and be represented, provision of the order to the immigration judge, and recording of the hearing. The Clerk of Court was directed to serve the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Prolonged mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) exceeding eight months triggers due process rights to an individualized bond hearing in the Eastern District of California.
- At the bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or danger to the community.
- Immigration judges must consider a detainee's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release if detention is not justified by flight risk or danger.
- Procedural safeguards including 72-hour notice, right to counsel, right to appear, and a recorded hearing are required for bond hearings ordered under this framework.
- The district court conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations before adopting them in full.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the due process limitation on mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) within the Eastern District of California. By adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and citing Singh v. Warden, the court affirms that detention beyond eight months without an individualized bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test. The decision aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent in Singh v. Holder and Hernandez v. Sessions, ensuring that the government must justify continued detention with clear and convincing evidence and that financial hardship cannot be a barrier to release when detention is unwarranted.