Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, identified in the order as Marco Antonio L.T., was admitted to the United States in July 2011 on an H2B visa valid through August 10, 2011, and stayed beyond its expiration. The record the court cited shows no criminal history. On September 4, 2026, immigration authorities detained him during a surveillance operation, and by the date of the order he had been held nearly two months without a bond hearing. He petitioned for habeas corpus and sought a temporary restraining order, arguing that detention without a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
The government said Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), conceded he is entitled to a bond hearing, but argued he had not requested one. The court found that the government's own Notice of Custody Determination reflects his written request almost two months earlier. A footnote reminded government counsel that Rule 11 requires reasonable factual inquiry and accurate descriptions of submitted documents; no sanction was imposed. The government did not contest Petitioner's liberty interest, did not argue that mandatory detention applied, and did not claim he is a danger to the community.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition on procedural due process grounds. It first found a protected liberty interest, reasoning that freedom from imprisonment lies at the core of due process and survives even if a person is removable, and that Petitioner's fifteen years in the community strengthened it. The government did not dispute this. Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found a substantial private interest, a considerable risk of erroneous deprivation because Petitioner received no process before or after detention, and a low government interest with minimal burden, since notice and custody hearings are routine under § 1226(a). The government showed no legitimate interest in detention: it did not claim dangerousness and conceded he is entitled to a bond hearing.
The court rejected the argument that no hearing was requested. A detainee may seek review of the initial custody determination by requesting a hearing before an immigration judge, the record showed Petitioner did so on September 4, 2026, and the government identified no scheduled hearing or explanation for inaction. Because a detainee cannot schedule or adjudicate his own request, submitting it did not provide the process owed, and the court found a clear Fifth Amendment violation.
The court ordered Petitioner released immediately, with his documents and possessions returned and a compliance notice filed within two court days. It declined to give the government a second chance because he was detained without a prior bond hearing and without a warrant. It enjoined re-arrest or re-detention while he is subject to § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections, specified as at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder at which the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that no alternative to detention can mitigate its public-safety or appearance concerns; he may have counsel present. The court granted in forma pauperis status, denied the TRO and counsel motions as moot, and directed entry of judgment and closure of the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that nearly two months of detention under § 1226(a) without a bond hearing, after a written request, violated procedural due process.
- A detainee's submission of a hearing request did not satisfy the entitlement where the government controlled scheduling and offered no explanation for failing to act.
- The court ordered release rather than a new hearing, citing the absence of both a pre-detention bond hearing and a warrant.
- The re-detention injunction applies to this Petitioner while he is subject to § 1226(a) and requires seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing with the government bearing a clear-and-convincing burden.
- The Rule 11 footnote was a reminder to counsel, not a sanction.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order, so it binds only the parties and is persuasive rather than controlling elsewhere. It rests on Ninth Circuit authority, notably Hernandez v. Sessions, and on Eastern District of California decisions finding due process violations from prolonged detention without a bond hearing. Its facts are specific: a detainee held nearly two months who requested a hearing and whom the government did not claim was dangerous.
Open matters remain. The order does not decide whether Petitioner is removable, and any future detention would be tested against the conditions the court set. The materials do not show whether the government sought further review.