Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, an immigration detainee held at the California City Detention Center, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. According to the magistrate judge's findings, Count Three challenged his indefinite post-removal detention under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On September 11, 2026, the district judge issued a temporary restraining order directing his release and barring re-detention absent certain constitutional protections, including at a minimum strict compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). That order rejected Respondent's contention that Petitioner's refusal to accept removal to a third country, where no Immigration Judge had ordered him removed, was a failure to cooperate under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C).
After Petitioner's release, Respondent asked that the petition be denied as moot. The magistrate judge rejected that request in findings and recommendations filed October 14, 2026. The findings reasoned that the TRO was only temporary relief, so without a final ruling Respondents could re-detain Petitioner without pre-deprivation process. They recommended granting the petition on Count Three only, making the TRO relief permanent, denying the pending motion to appoint counsel as moot, and closing the case. The parties had seven days to object. On October 20, 2026, Respondent filed an objection that relied entirely on its earlier briefing.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Dena Coggins held that the objection gave no basis to reject the findings. Respondent had merely pointed back to prior briefing, and those arguments had already been addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge and by the district judge in this case. After de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the court found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis. The order does not restate the due process reasoning. It rests on the findings, which in turn incorporate the TRO's analysis.
The court adopted the findings and granted the petition on Count Three. It made the TRO relief permanent and denied Petitioner's pending motion (Doc. No. 4) as moot. The findings identify that motion as one to appoint counsel. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case. A footnote says that, because the petition was granted on Count Three, the court need not address the other grounds, and it cites two district court decisions taking the same approach. The findings had recommended denying the remaining claims for judicial economy. The order's decretal paragraphs do not separately deny them, so they were simply not reached.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a final disposition: judgment is entered for Petitioner, the case is closed, and the TRO's temporary protections become permanent relief.
- The grant is limited to Count Three, the Fifth Amendment due process claim under Zadvydas, and the court did not decide the petition's other grounds.
- A short objection that only incorporates prior briefing, without engaging the findings, gave the court no reason to depart from them.
- By adopting the findings, the court also adopted the rejection of Respondent's mootness argument, which rested on the premise that a TRO alone leaves a released detainee exposed to re-detention.
- The specific release and re-detention terms are those of the earlier TRO (Doc. No. 8), which this order does not restate.
Why It Matters
This order settles what the earlier published recommendation left open: the district judge adopted the findings and converted temporary relief into a final judgment for the detainee. It is an unreported district court order. It has no binding precedential effect, and its persuasive value is limited because it relies on the findings and on other district court decisions, not on appellate authority.
Several points remain unresolved in the order itself. It does not describe the detailed conditions that would govern any future re-detention beyond incorporating the TRO, and it does not decide the petition's other counts. It also says nothing about whether any party will seek further review.