Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Moises de Jesus Garcia Molina, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection or admission at an unknown time in 2023 and continuously resided in the country thereafter. On or around August 15, 2026, Greene County Sheriff deputies in Virginia responded to a reported disorderly call at a residence, encountered petitioner, and determined he was unlawfully present. He was transported into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on or about August 16, 2026, where he remained at the time of the court's order.
On October 2, 2026, proceeding pro se, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ICE detention, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release and a motion for appointment of counsel. On October 7, 2026, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondent to address whether any provision of law or fact distinguished the case from several cited prior decisions of the court, and to state any opposition to the court's stated intention to rule on the underlying petition based on the current briefing.
Respondent filed an opposition on October 9, 2026, conceding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs petitioner's detention but arguing that petitioner was entitled only to a post-detention bond hearing. Respondent also seemingly argued that petitioner should first be required to exhaust his administrative remedies. Respondent did not indicate any opposition to the court ruling on the merits based on the briefing before it.
The Court’s Holding
The court first addressed respondent's exhaustion argument, incorporating the reasoning from Ramirez v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-02544-DAD-AC (HC), 2026 WL 1078250, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2026), and waiving prudential exhaustion in light of petitioner's challenge to his detention under the Due Process Clause.
Turning to the merits, the court incorporated the reasoning from Zurita Navarro v. Warden, Cent. Valley Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-05661-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 2294963, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026), which held that when the government fails to arrest a petitioner following or contemporaneously with the issuance of a warrant, or fails to provide an initial custody determination either prior to or contemporaneously with detention as required by § 1226(a), immediate release is the appropriate remedy. The court found no evidence before it that petitioner was provided an initial custody determination or that he was arrested pursuant to a warrant, and concluded that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief.
The court granted the petition and ordered respondent to immediately release petitioner from custody. It further enjoined and restrained respondent from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge at which the burden would be set in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. The motions for a temporary restraining order and for appointment of counsel were denied as moot, and the Clerk was directed to serve a copy of the order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, enter judgment in favor of petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted a pro se § 2241 habeas petition and ordered the immediate release of an ICE detainee because there was no evidence he was arrested pursuant to a warrant or given an initial custody determination as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- The court waived prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies because the petitioner challenged his detention on Due Process Clause grounds, relying on its prior decision in Ramirez v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility.
- Respondent conceded that § 1226(a) governed the detention but argued only for a post-detention bond hearing, a position the court rejected in favor of immediate release under its Zurita Navarro precedent.
- The order enjoined the government from re-detaining the petitioner, absent exigent circumstances, without written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge with the burden set under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations.
- The petitioner's motions for a temporary restraining order and for appointment of counsel were denied as moot because the order granting habeas relief afforded him the release he sought.
Why It Matters
This order continues a line of Eastern District of California decisions holding that ICE's failure to comply with the warrant-arrest and initial-custody-determination requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) warrants immediate release through habeas relief, rather than merely a post-detention bond hearing. By expressly incorporating the reasoning of Ramirez and Zurita Navarro, the court reinforced that these procedural failures have a substantive remedy.
The decision is also notable for its treatment of exhaustion: the court waived prudential exhaustion where the detainee's challenge rested on the Due Process Clause, signaling that detainees need not complete administrative processes before seeking habeas relief on constitutional grounds in this district. The order's forward-looking injunction against re-detention without notice and a hearing adds meaningful protection beyond the immediate release itself.