Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pawan Kumar, a native and citizen of India, filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his re-detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Kumar is subject to a final removal order that was reinstated on May 5, 2023, and he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), well outside the 90-day removal period. On March 12, 2026, the district court denied his motion for a temporary restraining order and referred the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
The district court previously found that ICE complied with regulations governing re-detention of noncitizens released while subject to a final removal order because Kumar was notified of the reasons for revocation of his release and received an informal interview to contest the alleged violations. The district court also concluded that Kumar was unlikely to succeed on his substantive due process claim, citing Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, which held that noncitizens detained under § 1231(a)(6) are not entitled to bond hearings after six months of detention where the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Following the referral, respondents filed a motion to dismiss on March 23, 2026. Kumar filed his response on April 10, 2026, submitting three additional letters of support noting that he does not drink, follows a vegetarian diet, and is respectful. Briefing on the motion is complete.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. The court found that Kumar's additional letters and argument did not materially change the district court's earlier findings on the motion for temporary restraining order. The magistrate judge recommended denying the procedural due process claim based on the finding that ICE complied with the regulations governing re-detention of noncitizens who are released while subject to a final removal order, as Kumar was notified of the reasons for the revocation of his release and was provided an informal interview to allow him to contest the alleged violations.
The magistrate judge further recommended denying the substantive due process claim based on Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, where the Supreme Court held that noncitizens pending withholding of removal proceedings and detained pursuant to § 1231(a)(6) are not entitled to bond hearings after six months of detention in which the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. The magistrate judge also recommended that respondents' motion to dismiss be denied as moot and that the Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment for respondent and close the case.
These findings and recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written objections within fourteen days, with responses due within seven days after service of objections. The parties were advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of California recommended denying a habeas corpus petition challenging ICE's re-detention of a noncitizen subject to a reinstated final removal order.
- The court found that ICE complied with its regulations governing re-detention by providing notice of the reasons for revocation of release and an informal interview to contest the alleged violations.
- The substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, which held that noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) are not entitled to bond hearings where the government must prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
- The petitioner submitted additional letters of support describing his character and habits, but the court found these did not materially change the analysis.
- The recommendations are subject to objection by the parties within fourteen days before the district judge enters a final order.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the limited avenues available to noncitizens challenging re-detention following revocation of release under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). Where ICE follows its own regulations by providing notice and an informal interview, procedural due process claims are unlikely to succeed. The decision also reinforces the broad reach of Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, which severely restricts substantive due process claims seeking bond hearings for noncitizens detained under § 1231(a)(6), even those with pending withholding of removal proceedings.
The case demonstrates the procedural posture of habeas challenges to immigration detention in the Eastern District of California, where such petitions are referred to magistrate judges for findings and recommendations following initial rulings on emergency relief. The recommendation, if adopted, would result in judgment for the government and closure of the case.