Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Juan Walter Carrillo Calmo, a native of Guatemala detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the California City Detention Facility, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. According to the record cited in the order, he pleaded guilty around April 2, 2025, to two counts of robbery under Florida law and received a 22.65-month sentence. Immigration officials located him in June 2026 while he was serving it, and a Notice to Appear served June 16, 2026, alleged he was present without admission or parole and charged removability, including on a crime-involving-moral-turpitude ground.
Petitioner signed his petition on August 15, 2026, alleging three months in immigration custody. He argued that his detention had become prolonged in violation of Fifth Amendment due process and sought release or, alternatively, a bond hearing. He also moved for appointment of counsel. Respondent moved to dismiss, contending that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) because of the robbery conviction. Petitioner did not oppose the motion, and the response deadline had passed.
Respondent asserted that petitioner had not sought a Joseph hearing, the administrative proceeding in which a detainee may argue before an immigration judge that he is not covered by § 1226(c). The petition did not claim misclassification; it argued only that detention, whatever its statutory basis, had lasted too long.
The Court’s Holding
By order, the magistrate judge denied the motion for appointment of counsel, finding that no further briefing would be beneficial and that the interests of justice did not require counsel at this time. The rest of the ruling consists of recommendations to the district judge. On classification, the court noted that the Florida robbery offense appears to align with California robbery, which the Ninth Circuit has treated as a crime involving moral turpitude. Because petitioner did not claim misclassification, it assumed without deciding that § 1226(c)(1)(A) authorizes his detention and pointed to a Joseph hearing as the route for any such challenge.
On due process, the court found the detention not yet unconstitutionally prolonged. Demore v. Kim upheld § 1226(c) on the understanding that detention is brief, roughly a month and a half in most cases and about five months when the noncitizen appeals, and petitioner's roughly five months fit that range. Under the Mathews v. Eldridge factors as applied in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, his liberty interest was significant, but the length so far did not favor relief. Nothing suggested removal proceedings were stalled or detention indefinite, petitioner identified no government-caused delay, and the government's interests in securing appearance and protecting the public were heightened by his recent robbery conviction.
The court recommended denying the petition without prejudice, denying the motion to dismiss as moot, and closing the case. Parties have fourteen days to object, with responses due seven days after objections are served; failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- Roughly five months of detention under § 1226(c) during active removal proceedings was not treated as unconstitutionally prolonged under Demore v. Kim.
- A detainee who challenges only the length of detention, and not his § 1226(c) classification, should point to delay, stalled proceedings, or indefinite detention; this record showed none.
- A claim that a particular conviction does not trigger mandatory detention is directed to a Joseph hearing before an immigration judge.
- The denial of counsel is an order, but the denial of the petition is only a recommendation that the district judge has not yet adopted.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished magistrate judge recommendation with no precedential weight, and it is not a final judgment. Until the district judge rules on any objections, the recommended dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the petition's status.
The decision shows how Eastern District of California judges are analyzing prolonged-detention claims under § 1226(c), relying on another magistrate recommendation, Coreas Chavez, rather than binding authority. Because the court found detention not yet unconstitutional, a later challenge could rest on a longer period, delay, or stalled proceedings. The court also did not decide whether the Florida conviction actually triggers § 1226(c), leaving that for a Joseph hearing.