Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Mandeep Mandeep, a citizen and national of India, entered the United States without inspection on or around September 15, 2026. Immigration officials apprehended him and released him after several weeks of detention, though the record did not specify the manner of release, such as humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). ICE re-detained him on October 25, 2026, after he reported to its Fresno Office under Intensive Supervision Appearance Program requirements. He has no criminal record in the United States or India and was detained at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility within the Eastern District of California.
Through counsel, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 27, 2026, challenging his re-arrest without a pre-deprivation hearing under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He sought immediate release and an injunction barring re-detention during removal proceedings absent written notice and a hearing at which Respondents must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger and that no alternatives would mitigate those risks.
The magistrate judge ordered Respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted and to address whether Petitioner received a pre-deprivation hearing before re-detention. Respondents answered that Petitioner was not entitled to such a hearing whether detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) or § 1226(a), argued he was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1), and contended that a pre-deprivation hearing under § 1226(a) could not be reconciled with Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge explained that the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including noncitizens, citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001), and Ninth Circuit precedent. The court applied the two-step procedural due-process framework and the three-part Mathews v. Eldridge test that the Ninth Circuit has assumed applies to immigration detainees.
Relying on prior rulings by the assigned District Judge, including Kaur v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (E.D. Cal. 2025), and Juan Carlos V.B. v. Chestnut (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2026), the magistrate judge concluded that the Due Process Clause requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government re-detains a noncitizen previously released on recognizance under § 1226(a) or humanitarian parole under § 1182(d)(5). Because ICE undisputedly re-detained Petitioner in October 2026 without a pre-deprivation hearing, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition. The court did not resolve the statutory detention authority because the due-process analysis and remedy were the same either way, but it rejected Respondents' reading of Rodriguez Diaz as limited to second bond hearings for someone already in custody.
In tailoring the remedy, the magistrate judge cited Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 (1990), and the assigned District Judge's treatment of post-deprivation remedies as a special case. Because Petitioner had no criminal history and Respondents identified no exigent circumstances, release on the previous supervision conditions was the appropriate remedy. The recommendations were to grant the petition; order immediate release on the conditions in place before the October 25, 2026 arrest; require return of documents and possessions; require a compliance certification within two court days of any final order; require at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing with a clear-and-convincing government burden before any future re-detention; and leave unaddressed detention after an executable final removal order.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the § 2241 petition because ICE undisputedly re-detained Petitioner in October 2026 without any pre-deprivation hearing, violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The recommendation rested on prior assigned-District-Judge rulings that re-detention of a noncitizen previously released on recognizance or humanitarian parole requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The court declined to decide whether Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) or § 1226(a), concluding the due-process analysis and remedy were the same regardless of the statutory basis.
- The magistrate judge rejected Respondents' reliance on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, explaining that case addressed only a second bond hearing for someone already in custody, not seizure after government-sanctioned liberty without prior process.
- The recommended remedy was immediate release on the same supervision conditions in place before the October 25, 2026 arrest, plus at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing at which the government must prove flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence before any future re-detention.
Why It Matters
These findings and recommendations continue an Eastern District of California line holding that the Due Process Clause requires a pre-deprivation hearing before ICE may re-detain a noncitizen who was previously released, whether on recognizance or humanitarian parole. The recommendation extends that reasoning even where the record did not specify the manner of release, emphasizing that the constitutional defect is the absence of pre-deprivation process rather than the particular detention statute.
The decision also narrows Rodriguez Diaz's reach within the district, treating it as addressing successive bond hearings for those already in custody rather than foreclosing due-process protection for noncitizens re-arrested after government-sanctioned release. Because this is a magistrate judge's recommendation subject to a shortened three-day objection period, it is not itself a final order; the recommended release and related directives take effect only if adopted by the assigned District Judge.