Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California against Tonya Andrews and other respondents. The order identifies his re-detention in May 2026 and continued detention without a bond hearing as the conduct at issue, and its injunction applies while he is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The petition was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 19, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 15), served with notice that objections were due within three days. Respondents objected "for the reasons given in their Response" (ECF No. 16). The district judge conducted a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304 and found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis. The order does not restate the underlying facts or the magistrate judge's reasoning, and the findings were not among the materials reviewed here.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition. It declared that Petitioner's re-detention in May 2026 and his continued detention without a bond hearing violate his rights under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Respondents must immediately release him under the same conditions that applied immediately before the re-detention, return all of his documents and possessions at release, and file a notice of compliance within two court days of the order.
The court also enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner, while he is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), unless they comply with statutory and constitutional protections. Those include at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. There the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring his appearance at future immigration proceedings outweighs his constitutionally protected interest in remaining free from detention, such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that risk. The order cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001), and Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017). Petitioner may have counsel present. If he becomes subject to a final and executable removal order, the government must give at least seven days' notice, counted from the date that order becomes final and executable, before executing it and detaining him.
The court denied Petitioner's request for attorney's fees and costs, noting that no attorney appeared in the matter. The Clerk was directed to serve the order on the Golden State Annex, enter judgment in favor of Petitioner, and close the case. Nothing remains pending in the district court, although the order does not address any appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted a § 2241 petition and declared that this petitioner's re-detention in May 2026 and continued detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- The remedy was immediate release under the prior conditions, return of documents and possessions, and a notice of compliance due within two court days.
- Any future re-detention while Petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) requires seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing at which the government carries a clear-and-convincing burden and must show that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk.
- Petitioner may have counsel at that hearing, and a final executable removal order triggers a separate seven-day notice requirement before the government may execute it and detain him.
- Fees and costs were denied because no attorney appeared, not because of any general rule about unrepresented petitioners.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order adopting a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. It carries no binding precedential weight and does not itself set out the reasoning for the due process ruling. Its value lies in showing the relief one Eastern District judge granted: release, a declaration, and a detailed injunction that conditions re-detention on notice, a hearing and a heightened government burden.
The relief is tied to this petitioner and to the period in which he is subject to § 1226(a). The order does not say how it would treat other detention statutes or whether the same procedures apply to other detainees. Respondents' objections relied on their earlier response and were evidently overruled, since the court adopted the findings in full, but the order does not discuss them. Practitioners should obtain the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 15) and Respondents' response before relying on the analysis.