Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Dung Tan Nguyen, a former federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). On April 3, 2026, the district court granted Nguyen’s motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered his immediate release from immigration detention. On April 22, 2026, the court converted the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and referred the petition to the assigned magistrate judge.
On September 2, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be granted. The magistrate judge concluded that Nguyen’s due process rights were violated when he was detained on January 7, 2026, without compliance with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within three days of service. No objections were filed and the time to do so passed. The absence of objections did not relieve the district court of its obligation to review the magistrate judge’s recommendation independently before entering a final disposition.
The Court’s Holding
The district court conducted a de novo review of the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court found the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full, granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and made the terms of the preliminary injunctive relief granted on April 22, 2026 permanent.
The court further ordered that respondents are required to provide petitioner prior notice of the requirements of his release such that petitioner has a meaningful opportunity to comply with such requirements. The Clerk of the Court was directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close the case. The order therefore converted the temporary protection previously afforded to Nguyen into final relief, resolving the habeas proceeding on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full after de novo review, granting the habeas petition.
- The court found that petitioner’s due process rights were violated when he was detained on January 7, 2026, without compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
- The preliminary injunction ordering petitioner’s release was made permanent, converting temporary relief into a final remedy.
- Respondents must provide petitioner prior notice of the requirements of his release to ensure a meaningful opportunity to comply.
- Judgment was entered in favor of petitioner and the case was closed, giving the disposition finality.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the due process protections afforded to immigration detainees under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), requiring compliance with regulatory procedures before continued detention. The court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s findings after de novo review and the conversion of preliminary injunctive relief into permanent relief underscore the substantive nature of the due process violation found.
The requirement that respondents provide prior notice of release conditions ensures meaningful compliance opportunities for the petitioner. By entering judgment in favor of the petitioner and closing the case, the court resolved the habeas proceeding with finality, confirming that the regulatory violation warranted permanent injunctive relief rather than merely temporary protection.