Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Diego Alejandro Lopez Arceo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court noted that noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States without admission are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
The court had previously held in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, D.L.C. v. Wofford, and Altin v. Chestnut that the Due Process Clause requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government may re-detain a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole. On October 21, 2026, the court asked both parties whether they opposed simultaneous resolution of the TRO motion and the habeas petition, and directed Respondents to identify any factual or legal issues materially distinguishing this case from those prior orders.
Respondents filed their opposition on October 22, 2026, raising the same grounds the court had previously rejected and identifying no materially distinguishing issues. Although they noted that Petitioner was detained following an arrest by local law enforcement, they neither argued nor explained why his criminal history made the court's prior due process rulings inapplicable. Petitioner replied that he did not object to the court ruling on the habeas petition without further briefing or oral argument.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both the motion for a temporary restraining order and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, adopting the reasoning of its prior decision in Altin v. Chestnut. Because Respondents made no new legal arguments and identified no distinguishing factual or legal issues, the court held that re-detaining Petitioner without a pre-deprivation bond hearing violated due process. The court emphasized that numerous courts within the Ninth Circuit, including this court, have found that due process requires such a hearing even where a noncitizen is allegedly detained in relation to criminal charges, and that Respondents failed to show Petitioner's criminal history mitigated that right.
The court ordered Petitioner's immediate release from custody under the same conditions that applied immediately before his June 2026 detention, barring Respondents from imposing additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. Respondents must return all of Petitioner's documents and possessions upon his release, file a notice of compliance within three days, and provide no less than seven days' notice plus a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which his bond eligibility is considered before any future re-detention. The order expressly does not address detention if Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal after receiving notice of that order.
The Clerk of the Court was directed to serve the order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case. United States District Judge Dena Coggins signed the order on October 23, 2026; it was filed on October 26, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States without admission face discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole.
- A noncitizen's criminal history does not defeat the right to a pre-deprivation bond hearing absent a specific justification tying that history to the risk of erroneous deprivation.
- The remedy for the government's failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing is the detainee's immediate release from custody.
- The order leaves open when the government may detain a noncitizen who becomes subject to an executable final order of removal after receiving notice of that order.
Why It Matters
This order extends a line of Eastern District of California and Ninth Circuit decisions holding that noncitizens previously released into the United States cannot be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond hearing. By granting the TRO and the habeas petition together, the court showed it will resolve such petitions promptly and order immediate release where the government offers nothing new.
It also confirms that a detainee's criminal history, standing alone, does not justify detention without a hearing; the government must connect a specific record to the risk of erroneous deprivation. The ruling adds pressure on immigration authorities to provide meaningful procedural protections before depriving noncitizens of liberty.