Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Erwin Jimenez Gonzalez, a Guatemalan national, petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 while held by ICE in Adelanto. According to the petition, which Respondents did not dispute, he tried to enter the United States without inspection in May 2014 and was apprehended. He was granted conditional parole and released on an order of recognizance. Removal proceedings against him were later terminated, and an immigration judge dismissed them in November 2022. He is alleged to be the father of a four-year-old U.S. citizen child and stepfather to two other U.S. citizen children. He is also alleged to have attended every scheduled ICE check-in, and no removal order is in effect against him.
Respondents added that Petitioner was arrested on June 8, 2026 on two misdemeanor driving-under-the-influence charges in Ventura. An immigration detainer apparently was lodged but not honored, and he was released. On August 8, 2026, he was re-detained at a gas station. The petition alleges that he received no explanation, warrant, or notice that his parole was revoked, and no chance to contest the detention before a neutral adjudicator. An immigration judge held a bond hearing on September 8, 2026, and he remained in custody. His petition, filed September 28, 2026, raised six claims: substantive and procedural due process, the Fourth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. section 1357(a)(2), 8 C.F.R. section 287.8(c)(2)(ii), and ultra vires action under the Accardi doctrine.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted relief on Count Two, procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. It first held that a person released from government custody has a protected liberty interest in remaining free. It relied on Morrissey v. Brewer, Zadvydas v. Davis, and district court decisions including Pinchi v. Noem and Singh v. Janecka. When DHS released Petitioner, it conferred a conditional liberty interest that could not be withdrawn without constitutionally sufficient process.
Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that the private interest was substantial, given more than twelve years out of custody. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high because no notice or hearing preceded the August 8, 2026 arrest. Respondents identified no countervailing government interest. Their Answer argued the substantive due process claim, that a bond hearing had occurred, and that administrative remedies were unexhausted. It did not acknowledge the procedural due process claim. The court treated that silence as forfeiture of arguments Respondents could have made, citing Martinez v. Sessions, and concluded that the re-detention violated due process.
As a remedy, the court ordered release within 24 hours under the same conditions that applied before August 8, 2026. It also enjoined Respondents, until and unless a final order of removal is entered, from re-detaining Petitioner without prior written notice and an opportunity to respond and be represented by counsel, noting that the Answer did not address the injunction request. The remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice as moot, not decided on the merits. The court did not rule on the adequacy of the bond hearing. Petitioner may seek costs and attorney fees after judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen whom DHS released from custody holds a protected liberty interest in staying free that the government cannot withdraw without constitutionally sufficient process.
- Applying the Mathews factors, the court held that re-detention without prior notice or a hearing violated due process, and it found no government interest in the record that outweighed the need for those protections.
- A respondent that does not address a petitioner's procedural due process claim in its Answer risks forfeiting the arguments it could have made, particularly when the court has seen many similar claims succeed.
- The remedy restores the status quo by release under the prior conditions, supplemented by an injunction that stays in force only until a final removal order is entered.
- Only Count Two was decided. The other five claims were dismissed without prejudice as moot, so their merits remain unresolved.
Why It Matters
The order adds to a line of Central District of California decisions that treat prior release by DHS as creating a liberty interest requiring pre-deprivation process. It is an unpublished district-court order by a magistrate judge. It is persuasive rather than binding, and it did not decide whether Mathews is the controlling framework, which the court described as the test courts generally apply.
Practically, the order shows that the government's failure to engage with a procedural due process claim can be decisive. It also shows how courts shape relief: prompt release to the prior conditions, plus a forward-looking injunction limited to re-detention without written notice and a chance to respond with counsel. The order does not bar re-detention if the government provides that process or obtains a final removal order. It also leaves open whether the bond-hearing denial or the other claims had merit.