Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Miguel Angel Franco Ortiz, a Mexican citizen represented by counsel, entered the United States on or about July 16, 2016, without being admitted or paroled after inspection. The findings record three California driving-under-the-influence arrests, in May 2021, September 2021, and April 2024. Each led to a conviction under Vehicle Code section 23152(b), with jail sentences of nine, ten, and thirty days. The most recent conviction came more than a year and seven months before his immigration arrest.
In July 2026, immigration officers arrested him as he walked near a park in Willows, California. He was served with a Notice to Appear that began standard removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. section 1229a. It charged him as inadmissible for being present without admission or parole. He has remained in ICE detention since then.
He petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 on September 17, 2026. He alleged Fifth Amendment due process violations, an Accardi violation, and a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Respondents answered that, under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, he is detained under section 1226(a) and may seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. Petitioner filed a traverse, and briefing closed. A magistrate judge issued the findings under 28 U.S.C. section 636, and they were referred to District Judge Dena Coggins.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the petition on the statutory claim. Rodriguez Vazquez held that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to section 1226 rather than section 1225(b)(2)(A). On that basis the court found petitioner is detained under section 1226(a). Regulations give people detained under that provision bond hearings at the outset of detention, so he should have received one. The findings cite several other circuits and many district courts that read the statutes the same way.
On remedy, the findings stress that respondents did not argue flight risk or danger to the community. Because the immigration arrest came long after the last DUI conviction, the court found the convictions did not show a non-pretextual basis for detention. It concluded that release, rather than a later bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy, citing two recent Eastern District decisions with similar facts. The recommended order would require immediate release, return of personal documents and possessions, and a copy of the release order. It would also bar re-detention unless the government proves flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The injunction would not reach detention under other authority, such as section 1226(c) or section 1231.
The court would not reach the due process, Accardi, and other statutory claims, because the statutory ruling gives petitioner the relief he seeks. It also recommends denying a Fourth Amendment challenge to the warrantless arrest, raised for the first time in the traverse, because a traverse is not the proper pleading for additional grounds. Finally, it recommends that judgment be entered for petitioner and the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- These are findings and recommendations, not a final order. The district judge must act on them, and any party may file objections within seven days.
- Following Rodriguez Vazquez, the magistrate judge treated the interior arrest of a person who entered without admission as falling under section 1226(a), which carries a bond hearing at the outset of detention.
- The government's failure to assert flight risk or danger, together with the long gap since the last conviction, supported release rather than a post-deprivation bond hearing.
- New claims raised only in a traverse are not properly before the court, and the Fourth Amendment claim was recommended for denial on that basis.
- The proposed bar on re-detention is conditional and limited to the circumstances here, leaving other detention authorities untouched.
Why It Matters
The findings add to the growing body of Eastern District of California decisions applying Rodriguez Vazquez to long-term residents held without a bond hearing. They are notable for choosing release over a belated hearing where the government did not claim danger or flight risk and the criminal history was not recent.
Because this is an unpublished magistrate judge's recommendation, it has no precedential force. It does not release anyone unless the district judge adopts it. Still open are any objections, the district judge's disposition, and the constitutional and Accardi claims the court did not address. The opinion also has minor internal inconsistencies in some arrest and conviction dates, so readers should consult the record.