Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
George Varduashvili, a noncitizen, filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:26-cv-02167, challenging his February 2025 detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a violation of due process. He filed the petition and a temporary-restraining-order motion on March 19, 2026. On March 20, 2026, the district court directed respondents to file a response. On March 24, 2026, respondents opposed the motion but did not oppose converting it into a preliminary-injunction motion; they argued that a December 5, 2025 final removal order made his detention authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
On April 6, 2026, the district court granted the temporary restraining order and ordered Varduashvili's immediate release on the same terms as his pre-detention release. It found that he entered the United States in May 2022, had lived here for more than three years when detained, received no individualized custody determination or bond hearing, and had been detained for fourteen months when the order issued. The court concluded that he was likely to succeed because notice and a pre-deprivation hearing were required. It also barred additional restrictions unless found necessary at a future hearing and prohibited re-arrest or re-detention without specified constitutional protections. Varduashvili was released from ICE custody on April 8, 2026.
After referring the action to the assigned magistrate judge, the court provided the parties an opportunity to submit additional briefing on the merits of the underlying petition. Neither party submitted further briefing, and briefing was completed. The magistrate judge incorporated the earlier factual and procedural background and treated the record as unchanged from the temporary-relief ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge explained that habeas corpus tests the legality of custody and is available when custody violates the Constitution or federal law. District-court habeas jurisdiction includes immigration-detention challenges, and civil immigration detention generally depends on flight risk or danger to the community. Against that framework, the court found no basis to depart from the district judge's earlier findings on the unchanged record.
The recommendation rests on a Fifth Amendment procedural-due-process violation: Varduashvili had lived in the United States for more than three years, yet was detained in February 2025 without an individualized custody determination or bond hearing and remained detained for fourteen months when the district judge ruled. The court therefore recommended granting the petition, rather than merely extending temporary relief.
The proposed permanent injunction would bar re-detention unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence, at a constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that custody is justified by flight risk or community danger. Varduashvili would be allowed counsel at that hearing. The recommendation expressly does not address other circumstances establishing detention authority, including 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or § 1231. It also recommends judgment for Varduashvili and case closure, but these remain recommendations subject to objections and district-judge action, not a final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim recommended granting the § 2241 petition because the detention lacked procedural due process protections.
- The unchanged record after the April 6, 2026 temporary-restraining-order ruling supplied no basis to revisit the district judge's findings.
- The proposed injunction would require clear and convincing evidence of flight risk or danger at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
- The recommendation preserves the petitioner's right to have counsel present at any such hearing.
- The injunction proposal expressly leaves other detention-authority circumstances unaddressed, and the recommendations still require district-court disposition.
Why It Matters
The recommendation distinguishes interim release from final habeas relief: it uses the already-developed detention record to recommend a merits ruling after the parties declined additional briefing. Its central concern is the absence of an individualized process for a person who had lived in the United States for years and then spent fourteen months in custody.
The proposed remedy is procedural and conditional rather than an absolute immunity from detention. It specifies the hearing, decisionmaker, evidence standard, and access to counsel required for the contemplated re-detention, while expressly reserving other statutory detention circumstances. The document itself sets seven-day periods for objections and responses and warns that failure to object may waive appellate rights.