Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Maximino L.M., an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by Respondent Christopher Chestnut. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 9, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8) which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within seven days. Respondent filed objections to the findings and recommendations "for the reasons stated in their Reply" (ECF No. 9).
The district court conducted a de novo review of the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. After carefully reviewing the entire file, the court found the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court's order reflects adoption of those findings and recommendations in full, resulting in the granting of the habeas petition on due process grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) on due process grounds and ordered Respondent to immediately release Petitioner Maximino L.M. (A# 240-373-219). At the time of release, Respondent is required to return Petitioner's possessions and documents and provide a copy of the order. Respondent must file a notice certifying compliance within two days of the order date.
The court further enjoined Respondent from re-detaining Petitioner while subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections. These protections include a minimum of seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring Petitioner's appearance at future immigration proceedings outweighs Petitioner's constitutionally protected interest in remaining free from detention such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that risk. The court cited Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001), and Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017), as authority. At any such hearing, Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the order on California City Detention Facility, enter judgment in favor of Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief on due process grounds for an immigration detainee held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Re-detention is enjoined unless the government provides at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder.
- At any such hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified and no alternative can mitigate the risk.
- The detainee has the right to counsel at the bond hearing.
- The order requires immediate release, return of possessions, and certification of compliance within two days.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces due process protections for immigration detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by requiring a robust pre-deprivation hearing with a heightened evidentiary standard before continued detention. The court's reliance on Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions underscores that prolonged detention without adequate process violates constitutional guarantees. The injunction against re-detention without compliance with these procedural safeguards provides a meaningful check on executive detention authority and ensures that detention decisions are subject to neutral adjudication with the government bearing the burden of proof.