Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On September 3, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered judgment on Deivi Alejandro Pineda Coronil's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court ordered Respondents — the Warden of the California City Detention Facility and others — to provide Petitioner with a constitutionally compliant bond hearing no later than September 17, 2026, at which Respondents would bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence to show that Petitioner presented a flight risk or danger to the community.
Respondents conceded that a bond hearing was never scheduled within the timeframe the court had provided. As a result, Petitioner had been detained for over three months without any bond hearing. Petitioner then filed a motion to enforce the court's judgment and a separate motion asking the court to expedite consideration of that enforcement motion.
On November 6, 2026, the court issued the order at issue, granting the enforcement motion, denying the expedited-consideration motion as moot, and directing immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Petitioner's motion to enforce the prior order. Because Respondents failed to comply with the court's directive to hold a bond hearing by September 17, 2026, the court found the appropriate remedy to be immediate release, citing Rodriguez Bustillo v. Andrews, which explains that a delay in providing a bond hearing violates a petitioner's due process rights and justifies release. The court ordered that Petitioner be released immediately and directed Respondents to file a certification with the court confirming that he has been released from custody.
The court denied Petitioner's motion for expedited consideration as moot. It also enjoined and restrained Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner unless the government provides notice at least seven days in advance and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and applicable regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered and the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that physical custody is legally justified.
The injunction contains two express exceptions. If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without advance notice, a post-deprivation hearing consistent with the order must be provided within seven days of the arrest. And if Petitioner becomes subject to a final order of removal and receives notice of it, Respondents may detain him solely to execute removal, with a bond hearing in the timeframe required by law. The court directed the Clerk of Court to send a copy of the order to the California City Detention Facility in California City, California, and stated that the case remains closed.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated Respondents' conceded failure to schedule a bond hearing within the court-ordered deadline as a due process violation that justified immediate release, not merely a belated hearing.
- The enforcement remedy is immediate release: Petitioner is to be released at once, and Respondents must file a certification confirming his release from custody.
- Re-detention is enjoined unless the government gives at least seven days' advance notice and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under section 1226(a), with the government bearing a clear-and-convincing burden on flight risk or danger.
- Two exceptions permit detention without the full advance process: a post-deprivation hearing within seven days after a justified arrest without notice, and detention solely to execute removal after a final removal order with notice.
- The motion for expedited consideration was denied as moot, the Clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to the California City Detention Facility, and the case remains closed.
Why It Matters
The order applies the principle, drawn from Rodriguez Bustillo v. Andrews, that a delay in providing a court-ordered bond hearing violates a habeas petitioner's due process rights and justifies release. It converts the government's procedural noncompliance into an immediate release remedy rather than a mere directive to schedule a hearing.
The injunction also establishes a prospective framework for any re-detention: seven days' advance notice, a neutral arbiter, consideration of bond eligibility, and a clear-and-convincing government burden, subject to narrow exceptions for exigent arrest and execution of a final removal order. Together, the release directive and the injunction define both the remedy for the completed violation and the process required before Petitioner may be detained again.