Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Moises Ambrocio P.B., a federal immigration detainee held at California City Detention Center, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. 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 27, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within three days. Respondent filed objections incorporating prior briefing by reference.
The district court then conducted a de novo review of the entire file pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. The court found the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The petitioner's full name was omitted from the caption to protect sensitive personal information, consistent with Judicial Conference guidance on privacy in immigration opinions. The case proceeded on an expedited timeline given the liberty interest at stake.
The Court’s Holding
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus on claim one. The court ordered the respondent to immediately release petitioner Moises Ambrocio P.B. (A#208-054-308) from custody and return all documents and possessions at the time of release. The respondent must file a notice of compliance within two court days.
Critically, the court enjoined the respondent from re-arresting or re-detaining the 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 demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring appearance outweighs the petitioner's liberty interest such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk. The petitioner shall be allowed counsel at any such hearing. If the petitioner becomes subject to a final and executable removal order, the government must provide at least seven days' notice of any intent to execute the order and detain the petitioner. The clerk was directed to serve the order, enter judgment for petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court conducted a de novo review and fully adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, granting habeas relief on the primary claim.
- The court ordered immediate release of the immigration detainee and imposed a detailed injunction against future detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without robust procedural safeguards.
- The injunction requires seven days' notice, a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, a clear-and-convincing evidence standard, and the right to counsel — drawing on Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions.
- If a final removal order becomes executable, the government must provide seven days' notice before executing it and detaining the petitioner.
- The respondent must file a notice of compliance within two court days, and the clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections for immigration detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), requiring meaningful procedural safeguards before prolonged detention or re-detention. The court's injunction operationalizes Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent by mandating specific notice periods, hearing requirements, and evidentiary standards that the government must meet to justify continued detention.
The immediate release order and compliance deadline underscore the urgency of liberty interests in habeas corpus proceedings. By adopting the magistrate judge's findings in full and entering judgment for the petitioner, the court provides a clear remedial framework for similar challenges to immigration detention.