Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Ernesto David Barroso Salazar, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged mandatory detention without a bond hearing. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 25, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within seven days.
Respondents filed objections on August 30, 2026, arguing that the magistrate judge erred by conflating statutory process with Fifth Amendment due process, that the Immigration and Nationality Act's procedures satisfy due process for arriving aliens, that a bond hearing falls outside the core of habeas corpus, and that the Ninth Circuit has warned against shifting the burden of proof in immigration bond hearings. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a status conference and ruling on October 19, 2026. The district court conducted a de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304.
The Court’s Holding
The district court overruled respondents' objections and adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full. The court found that respondents' arguments had been previously addressed and rejected both by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned in other cases, specifically citing Inderjit Singh v. Albarran (granting a bond hearing after approximately twelve months of detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)) and Rodriguez v. Warden, Cal. City Det. Fac. (granting a bond hearing after over six months of detention under the same statute). The court concluded that noncitizens are entitled to a bond hearing when mandatory immigration detention without such a hearing becomes unconstitutionally prolonged.
Accordingly, the court granted the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on procedural due process grounds (Count Two) and ordered specific relief: (a) within 14 days, respondents must provide petitioner a bond hearing before an immigration judge at which the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community; (b) respondents must provide 7 days' advance notice of the hearing and allow petitioner to have counsel present; (c) if respondents fail to comply, petitioner shall be immediately released; and (d) within 17 days, respondents must file a status report certifying compliance with the immigration judge's order. The court denied petitioner's pending motion as moot and directed the clerk to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court affirmed that prolonged mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without a bond hearing violates due process, consistent with prior rulings in the Eastern District of California.
- The government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is justified at any ordered bond hearing.
- Detainees are entitled to 7 days' advance notice of bond hearings and the right to have counsel present.
- Failure to provide the ordered bond hearing within 14 days triggers mandatory release from custody.
- The court declined to address additional grounds raised in the petition because the due process claim provided complete relief.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the growing body of case law in the Eastern District of California holding that indefinite mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without an individualized bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. By adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations and citing its own prior decisions in Singh and Rodriguez, the court establishes a clear pattern requiring bond hearings with government-borne burdens of proof after six to twelve months of detention. The specific procedural safeguards ordered—clear and convincing evidence standard, advance notice, right to counsel, and automatic release for non-compliance—provide a template for similar habeas petitions challenging prolonged immigration detention.