Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Francisco Pedro Bernardino filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention, together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. He had previously been released into the United States and was later re-detained by immigration authorities; the order's release condition refers to his detention on June 18, 2026, while Respondents state that ICE encountered him on June 19, 2026 after he completed charges as a juvenile offender. The court noted a discrepancy in the docket, which spelled his last name as Bernandino, and directed the Clerk to update the docket to correct the spelling to Bernardino.
On September 25, 2026, the court advised the parties that it was considering ruling directly on the merits of the petition alongside the TRO motion, and it directed Respondents to identify any factual or legal features distinguishing the case from the court's prior decisions in Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, and D.L.C., which had required pre-deprivation bond hearings before re-detention. Respondents filed an opposition on September 29, 2026, arguing that Petitioner had been re-detained after serving a commitment for a juvenile sexual battery adjudication, and they attached his FBI RAP sheet. Respondents did not, however, oppose simultaneous resolution of the TRO and the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States without admission are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. Building on its prior rulings, the court reaffirmed that the Due Process Clause requires the government to provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before re-detaining a noncitizen who was previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole.
The court rejected Respondents' attempt to distinguish Petitioner's case based on his criminal history, explaining that Respondents offered no argument for why that history eliminated the right to a pre-deprivation hearing and that numerous courts within the Ninth Circuit have required such hearings even where detention relates to criminal charges. The court also dismissed Respondents' reliance on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, agreeing with other courts that the decision addressed only the right to a second bond hearing, not the right to an initial pre-deprivation hearing. Because Respondents identified no materially distinguishing facts or law, the court granted the petition and the TRO as to Count One, the due process claim, and declined to reach the petition's remaining grounds.
As relief, the court ordered Petitioner's immediate release under the same conditions that applied before his June 18, 2026 detention, barred additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future hearing finds them necessary, directed the return of his documents and possessions, and required a notice of compliance within three days. The court further ordered that any future re-detention must be preceded by at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing, expressly reserving the circumstances of detention following an executable final order of removal. The court denied the pending motions (Doc. Nos. 2, 4) as moot, directed the Clerk to update the docket spelling and serve a copy of the order on the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court reaffirmed that due process entitles a noncitizen previously released under § 1226 to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government may re-detain him.
- A petitioner's criminal history, standing alone and without developed argument from the government, does not defeat the right to a pre-deprivation bond hearing.
- The court construed Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland narrowly, holding it addressed only successive bond hearings and did not eliminate the pre-deprivation hearing right.
- Because the petition was granted on the due process count, the court declined to address the petition's other grounds, denied the pending motions as moot, and ordered judgment entered for the petitioner.
- The order permits future re-detention only after seven days' notice and a bond hearing, while expressly leaving open detention rules that would apply after an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
This decision extends a growing line of Eastern District of California rulings requiring pre-deprivation bond hearings before immigration authorities may re-detain noncitizens previously released into the United States. It is notable for resolving the habeas petition on the merits simultaneously with the TRO, with the respondents' acquiescence, rather than limiting itself to provisional relief.
The order also underscores that the government must do more than point to a petitioner's criminal record to justify detention without a hearing; it must explain why that history changes the due process analysis. At the same time, the court carefully preserved the government's authority to detain following an executable final order of removal, leaving that distinct question for another case.