Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jesus Mejia Huerta, a noncitizen proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing immigration detention at the Central Valley Annex. He simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release from custody. The government detained Huerta in July 2026. In their opposition filed October 30, 2026, Respondents maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) was the statutory basis for Petitioner's detention, but they acknowledged that the case fit into the category of cases in which the court had found that the petitioner's parole into the United States was more significant than his manner of entry. Respondents further stated they did not oppose the court ruling directly on the petition. Given that Petitioner was proceeding pro se and the court was granting the relief he sought, the court declined to await a reply.
The court had previously addressed these same legal issues in a line of decisions including Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, D.L.C. v. Wofford, and Altin v. Chestnut. In those cases, the court held that the Due Process Clause requires that, before the government may re-detain a noncitizen who has been previously released on bond or conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), it must provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the noncitizen's eligibility for bond is considered. The court also cited Ninth Circuit authority in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock confirming that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). On October 28, 2026, the court had informed the parties it was considering ruling directly on the petition and asked whether they opposed simultaneous resolution of the TRO motion and habeas petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Huerta's petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for a temporary restraining order, adopting the reasoning set forth in Altin v. Chestnut. Because Respondents had made no new legal arguments and identified no factual or legal issues distinguishing this case from the court's prior decisions, the court ordered immediate release. Specifically, Huerta is to be released immediately from Respondents' custody under the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his July 2026 detention, with no additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing. Respondents must return all of Huerta's documents and possessions upon his release, and must file a notice of compliance within three days confirming his release. Furthermore, if the government seeks to re-detain Huerta in the future, it must provide no less than seven days' notice and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which his eligibility for bond must be considered.
The court denied the pending motions as moot, directed the Clerk of the Court to 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. The order expressly states that it does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of that final order.
Key Takeaways
- The court reaffirmed that the Due Process Clause requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government may re-detain a noncitizen previously released on bond under § 1226(a) or humanitarian parole under § 1182(d)(5).
- Noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
- The proper remedy for the government's failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond hearing is the petitioner's immediate release from custody.
- Any future re-detention of the petitioner requires at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter where his eligibility for bond is considered.
- The court entered final judgment for the petitioner and closed the case, rendering pending motions moot, while expressly leaving open the possibility of detention upon an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
This order extends a consistent line of Eastern District of California decisions holding that the government cannot re-detain noncitizens who were previously released on bond or parole without first providing a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter. The ruling reinforces due process protections in the immigration detention context and clarifies that interior apprehensions trigger discretionary rather than mandatory detention authority under federal law.
The detailed release conditions and procedural safeguards for any future detention provide a template for similar habeas cases in the district. By adopting the reasoning in Altin and ordering immediate release, the court signals that the government's failure to provide a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation hearing will continue to result in habeas relief, while the express exception for executable final orders of removal preserves the government's authority in that specific context.