Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tomas Pascual T., identified in the order by name and initial to protect sensitive personal information, is an immigration detainee who, through appointed counsel, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondents are the warden of the California City ICE Detention Facility and other officials. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 5, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 20). They were served with notice that objections were due within seven days. Respondents objected, relying on the reasons in their prior briefing, and Petitioner responded to the objections. A recommendation of this kind has no binding effect until the assigned district judge adopts it, so the district judge's review was the operative step.
Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley signed the order on October 13, 2026, and it was entered on October 14, 2026. The order is short and does not restate the magistrate judge's reasoning. The findings and recommendations themselves were not among the materials reviewed here, so this summary is limited to what the order itself states about the grounds and relief.
The Court’s Holding
Conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304 of the entire file, the court found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis. It adopted them in full and granted the habeas petition. This is a final disposition of the case: the clerk was directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case.
The court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner immediately on the same conditions as his prior release, return all of his documents and possessions at release, and file a notice of compliance within two court days of the order. The release directive is a mandatory order, not a recommendation.
The court also enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner while he is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) unless they comply with statutory and constitutional protections. Those protections, as the order describes them, include at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder. At that hearing the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring Petitioner appears at future immigration proceedings outweighs his constitutionally protected interest in remaining free from detention, such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that risk. Petitioner may have counsel present. The order cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001), and Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017), for this framework.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas petition and ordered immediate release, with a notice of compliance due within two court days.
- The injunction is limited to re-detention of this Petitioner while he is subject to § 1226(a); it does not announce relief for other detainees.
- Before any re-detention, the government must give at least seven days' notice and prove at a pre-deprivation hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, that no alternative to detention can mitigate its flight or danger concerns.
- The order adopted the magistrate judge's findings in full over Respondents' objections, which relied on their earlier briefing; the order does not itself summarize the reasoning.
- The order is unreported, so it is one district court's ruling on one petitioner's detention rather than binding precedent.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a federal district court in the Eastern District of California may remedy detention of a person held under § 1226(a): by ordering release and conditioning any later arrest on advance notice and an adversarial hearing at which the government carries a clear and convincing burden. Zadvydas and Hernandez are the authorities the order identifies for that due process framework.
Its weight is limited. The order is unreported, rests on findings and recommendations not reviewed here, and addresses only this Petitioner. What remains open from the order itself is compliance: Respondents' notice was due within two court days, and any future detention would require the hearing the court described. The materials do not say whether Respondents will appeal, and nothing in them shows an appeal.