Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jaime Estuardo Martinez Cardona, a federal immigration detainee held at the California City Immigration Detention Center, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court described the underlying facts as undisputed: Martinez Cardona is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States on an unknown date without inspection by immigration officials. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him on June 20, 2026. He had no criminal record and was not subject to an administratively final removal order.
His petition challenged the detention on due process grounds because he had not received a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondent conceded that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), established that § 1226(a) governed the detention, while continuing to argue that detention was proper under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The magistrate judge therefore addressed the denial of the procedures associated with § 1226(a), rather than treating the governing detention statute as unresolved.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that, in light of Rodriguez Vazquez, Martinez Cardona’s detention was governed by § 1226(a). That statute supplies substantial procedural protections, including the right to request an initial custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d). The court found that Martinez Cardona had been denied those statutory protections for months and characterized that denial as a unique procedural due process violation. Even three months after his arrest and detention by ICE, nothing in the record showed that Respondent had offered him an opportunity to request a custody-redetermination hearing.
Relying on the flexibility federal courts have in fashioning habeas relief, the magistrate judge found that Martinez Cardona was entitled to immediate release from immigration detention. The October 23, 2026 findings and recommendations recommended granting the petition on count one and recommended that Respondent be ordered to immediately release Martinez Cardona and return all of his documents and possessions at the time of release. They also recommended that Respondent be directed to file a notice certifying compliance within three days of any final order requiring release. If the government sought to re-detain him, it would have to give at least seven days’ notice and provide a bond hearing at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community. The recommendations further recommended that the Clerk of Court be directed to serve any release order on the California City Immigration Detention Facility and enter judgment for Martinez Cardona and close the case, and that the final order not address detention after he becomes subject to an executable final removal order and receives notice of it. Remaining petition claims were not addressed in the interest of judicial economy.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated the government’s concession as establishing that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed Martinez Cardona’s detention.
- The due process violation was the months-long denial of the statutory opportunity to seek a custody redetermination, not merely the absence of a particular form of hearing.
- The recommended remedy was immediate release, supported by the court’s authority to tailor habeas relief, rather than simply a delayed bond hearing.
- Any government effort to re-detain him would require seven days’ notice and a bond hearing with the government bearing a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on flight risk or dangerousness.
- These were recommendations to the assigned district judge, not a final release order, and the magistrate judge shortened the objections period to three days because of the relief at issue and the completed written briefing.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez Vazquez decision to a detainee whom the government agreed fell within § 1226(a), and treats prolonged denial of the resulting custody-redetermination opportunity as an independent procedural due process violation. It also explains why providing a bond hearing only after months of detention may not adequately remedy the loss of a statutory right to seek release.
The proposed conditions distinguish release on the current record from any later detention following an executable final removal order, an issue expressly reserved. The document’s practical effect remained contingent on district-court action: it recommended release and judgment for the petitioner, set a three-day objection period, and warned that failure to object within the specified time could waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.