Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nelson Daniel Carrera Macias petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his immigration detention, which the order places in July 2026. The caption names the warden of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center as respondent, and the court directed service of its order on the California City Detention Facility. The petition was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 24, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, served with notice that objections were due within seven days. Neither party objected. On October 5, 2026, Petitioner moved for expedited resolution. The order does not describe the particular relief the magistrate judge recommended. The district judge applied the usual review standards: findings of fact are presumed correct under Orand v. United States, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo under Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School District. Respondents' filings had mentioned Petitioner's recent arrest, which the court noted is being handled in ongoing criminal proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations only in part. It found them supported by the record and the magistrate judge's analysis, but concluded, consistent with its previous decisions, that the appropriate relief is immediate release. The court reasoned that noncitizens are constitutionally entitled to prior notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before immigration authorities detain them. It relied on its own earlier rulings, including Selis Tinoco v. Noem and Labrador-Prato v. Noem, which granted temporary restraining orders and immediate release based on a likelihood of success on the due process claim, and Altin v. Chestnut, which granted both a temporary restraining order and the habeas petition on that claim.
Respondents neither argued nor explained why Petitioner's criminal history makes that earlier determination inapplicable. The court was unpersuaded that a bare mention of a recent arrest, which the criminal justice system is managing, shows he was not owed due process before detention. It cited other orders from the same court reaching the same result where the government offered no argument tying alleged criminal history to the detention.
The petition is granted. Respondents must release Petitioner immediately on the same conditions that applied before his July 2026 detention and may not add restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing finds them necessary. They must return his identification and other documents and possessions upon release 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 his bond eligibility. The order expressly does not address detention if Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of it. The expedited-resolution motion was denied as moot, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated immediate release, not a new hearing after the fact, as the remedy where a noncitizen was detained without prior notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
- A bare reference to a recent arrest, without argument connecting it to the detention, did not persuade the court that due process protections were inapplicable.
- The release order bars added restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a later pre-deprivation or custody hearing finds them necessary.
- Any re-detention requires at least seven days' notice and a hearing before a neutral arbiter at which Petitioner's bond eligibility must be considered.
- The order leaves open detention following an executable final order of removal, and it is a district court ruling built on the court's own prior decisions rather than binding appellate authority.
Why It Matters
This is a final judgment for Petitioner, not a dismissal with leave to amend, and the case is closed. The ruling applies a line of Eastern District of California decisions by the same judge, so it shows how that court is resolving similar detention petitions rather than creating binding precedent. The order itself does not identify the statutory detention provision at issue, and the cited decision that mentions section 1226(a) is a separate case.
Practically, the order sets conditions the government must follow if it wants to detain Petitioner again, including notice and a hearing, while expressly reserving the different situation of an executable final removal order. Whether the government can later justify detention at a bond hearing, and how courts outside this district treat the same due process question, remain open.