Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jimmy Jose G.G., identified by the court as an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) against the Warden of the California City Detention Facility and other respondents. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. To protect sensitive personal information, the court omitted the petitioner's full name, citing a May 1, 2018 Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management memorandum concerning privacy in Social Security and immigration opinions.
On September 30, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8), which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were due within three days. The respondent filed objections (ECF No. 9) "for the same reasons raised in the answer to the petition." The release order does not reproduce the magistrate judge's underlying analysis or describe the detention history in detail; it records the district court's independent review and the resulting relief.
The district judge signed the order on October 5, 2026, and it was filed on October 6, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Chief U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley conducted a de novo review of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis, adopted them in full, and granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The court ordered respondents to immediately release the petitioner from custody on the same conditions as his prior release. Respondents may not impose any additional restrictions unless a future pre-deprivation hearing determines them to be necessary. At the time of release, respondents must return all of the petitioner's documents and possessions, and they must file a notice of compliance with the release provision by October 9, 2026.
The order further enjoins the respondent from re-detaining the petitioner while he is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections. Those protections include a minimum of seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, at which the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring the petitioner's 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 petitioner must be allowed to have counsel present at any such hearing. The court grounded these requirements in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001), and Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017). Finally, the Clerk of Court was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for the petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court granted the immigration detainee's § 2241 habeas petition after adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full following de novo review.
- Respondents were ordered to release the petitioner immediately on his prior release conditions and to return all of his documents and possessions at the time of release.
- Any additional restrictions on the petitioner require a future pre-deprivation hearing at which they are determined to be necessary.
- Re-detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is barred without at least seven days' notice, a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, and a clear-and-convincing government showing that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk.
- The petitioner must be permitted to have counsel at any such hearing, and respondents were required to file a notice of compliance with the release directive by October 9, 2026.
Why It Matters
The order provides concrete release and compliance directives rather than merely announcing that the detention is unlawful. It preserves the petitioner's prior release conditions while restricting respondents' ability to add new limitations without further process, and it sets a specific compliance deadline of October 9, 2026.
Its re-detention provisions specify the notice, hearing, decision-maker, burden of proof, alternatives inquiry, and access to counsel required while the petitioner remains subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), citing Zadvydas and Hernandez. By directing the Clerk to enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case, the order converts the magistrate judge's recommendations into a final, enforceable judgment.