Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jesus Morales-Bautista, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention at the California City ICE Detention Facility. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 30, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within seven days.
Respondents filed objections on October 6, 2026, asserting that relief was improper because Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The district court noted that Respondents' arguments had already been addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned judge in other cases, specifically citing Cuenca-Pucha v. Andrews and Cardenas Osorio v. Sergio Albarran, which granted release on due process grounds for petitioners previously paroled into the United States. The court emphasized that the limitation on a petitioner's due process rights relates to admissibility, not detention, and therefore the objections did not provide a basis to reject the findings and recommendations.
The Court’s Holding
The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo, and adopted the recommendations in full. The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered Petitioner's immediate release from Respondents' custody without additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless later determined necessary at a pre-deprivation hearing. The court liberally construed the pro se petition and declined to address additional grounds because the procedural due process ruling provided complete relief.
The court further ordered Respondents to return all of Petitioner's documents and possessions upon release, file a notice of compliance within three days, and provide no less than seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter if the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner. The order expressly does not address circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of that final order. The court directed the Clerk to serve the order on the detention facility and enter judgment for Petitioner, closing the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court rejected the government's mandatory-detention argument under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, following precedent in the Eastern District of California that due process requires a bond hearing for immigration detainees previously paroled into the country.
- The court granted immediate release without electronic monitoring or other restrictions, emphasizing that any future re-detention requires advance notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The order requires the government to return all personal documents and possessions to the petitioner upon release and to file a notice of compliance within three days.
- The court declined to address additional grounds raised in the pro se petition because the due process ruling provided complete relief.
- The decision aligns with Cuenca-Pucha v. Andrews and Cardenas Osorio v. Sergio Albarran, reinforcing a line of cases in this district granting habeas relief on procedural due process grounds for similarly situated detainees.
Why It Matters
This order contributes to a developing body of district court rulings in the Eastern District of California holding that immigration detainees who were previously paroled into the United States are entitled to due process protections, including a bond hearing, before prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The court's reliance on its own prior decisions signals a consistent judicial approach in this district to reject the government's mandatory-detention argument in these circumstances.
By ordering immediate release and imposing specific procedural safeguards for any future re-detention, the court provides a concrete remedial framework for immigration detainees challenging prolonged detention on due process grounds. The order also illustrates the practical consequences of the district's evolving jurisprudence, requiring the government to return personal documents and file a notice of compliance within three days, thereby ensuring prompt implementation of the habeas relief.