Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jimmy Hendry Rivera Gutierrez sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, later supplemented his petition, and moved for a temporary restraining order. The magistrate judge described an earlier case, J.H.R.G. v. Andrews, No. 1:26-cv-01389-JLT-EPG, in which he raised due process claims about his re-detention. That court granted the petition and ordered a substantive bond hearing at which the government bore the burden of proof. After an immigration judge found by clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger and flight risk, he challenged the bond-hearing procedures in a motion to enforce judgment that was denied.
The amended petition presented six claims: lack of an individualized changed-circumstances determination; re-detention without advance notice or a pre-deprivation hearing; arbitrary detention; inadequacy of the March 10, 2026 bond hearing; failure to provide a meaningful custody redetermination; and continued detention under a conclusory bond denial. The supplemental petition added a prolonged-detention due process claim. After respondents invoked the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine, he clarified that he did not pursue the bond-hearing claims, so the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Claims Four, Five, and Six.
The magistrate judge also concluded that the earlier case had adjudicated the legality of the January 2026 re-detention, making abuse of the writ applicable to Claims One, Two, and Three. He found that about six months of detention following the bond hearing had not been shown to be unreasonably prolonged. The findings and recommendations were served with a 14-day objection deadline and a waiver warning; he filed no objections, and the period expired.
The Court’s Holding
The district court performed de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), concluded the findings and recommendations were supported by the record, adopted them, and dismissed every claim in the First Amended Petition. It then separately considered whether the additional time that passed while the recommendations were pending warranted an additional bond hearing, describing the detention as approximately seven months after the March 2026 bond hearing and, elsewhere in the same analysis, approximately seven months since the identified December 2025 bond hearing.
Applying Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland and the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court weighed the private liberty interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional procedures, and the government's interests. It presumed without deciding that the detention was prolonged in a general sense, recognized a legitimate but diminished liberty interest because he was subject to a removal order, and identified government interests in securing removal and preventing unlawful presence that grow with time.
On erroneous deprivation, the court emphasized that he had received a bond hearing with an individualized custody determination and could request another upon materially changed circumstances, so existing procedures sufficiently protected his liberty interest. The Mathews factors therefore weighed against an additional bond hearing at that time. The court denied the supplemental petition without prejudice, denied the temporary-restraining-order motion as moot, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations after de novo review and dismissed all claims in the First Amended Petition.
- Claims concerning the January 2026 re-detention were dismissed under the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine because the earlier habeas case had adjudicated that re-detention's legality.
- Claims Four, Five, and Six were treated as no longer pursued after Rivera Gutierrez disclaimed any challenge to the bond hearing's adequacy and the immigration judge's findings.
- Receiving an individualized bond hearing and retaining the ability to seek a new hearing upon materially changed circumstances weighed against requiring additional procedures.
- The supplemental prolonged-detention petition was denied without prejudice, the temporary-restraining-order motion was denied as moot, and the case was ordered closed.
Why It Matters
The order distinguishes dismissal of the amended petition's claims from denial of the supplemental prolonged-detention petition without prejudice. It also shows the court did not rely on the earlier six-month assessment: it conducted a fresh Mathews analysis after roughly seven months, expressly presumed without deciding whether the detention qualified as prolonged in a general sense, and described that period both after the March 2026 bond hearing and since the December 2025 bond hearing.
The decision applies Rodriguez Diaz to a detainee who had already received an individualized custody determination and could still request a hearing based on changed circumstances. That procedural access, the existing removal order, and the government's removal-related interests led the court to reject an additional bond hearing at that time, without suggesting changed circumstances could never justify renewed review.