Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Andry Perez-Castillo, a federal immigration detainee proceeding without counsel, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 22, 2026, while held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Central Valley Annex. The case was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). On October 5, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that included directing a custody redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The order cites those findings as Doc. 7 in its caption and decretal paragraph but as Doc. 8 in its narrative, an apparent clerical inconsistency.
Respondents timely objected, repeating their earlier argument that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). They acknowledged, however, that binding Ninth Circuit authority, Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), provides otherwise. The order does not describe that decision's reasoning, Petitioner's immigration history, or the facts underlying his detention.
The Court’s Holding
Conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court examined the entire file, including Respondents' objections, and concluded that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. It adopted them in full and granted the petition. The order itself contains little independent analysis; the reasoning rests on the magistrate judge's findings, which the order does not reproduce, and on the court's note that Respondents acknowledge contrary binding circuit authority.
The relief is staged. Within 48 hours, Respondents must make an initial custody determination under § 1226(a), at which they may release Petitioner or continue detention if deemed appropriate. If he is not released, Respondents must immediately seek an arrest warrant if none has been issued, and must release him immediately if the warrant is not granted. If a warrant is granted, a bond hearing under § 1226(a) must occur within 10 days of the initial determination, with both sides allowed to present evidence and argument on whether Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk.
The court added protections: immediate delivery of the order to Petitioner and 72 hours' written notice of the hearing in a language he understands; the opportunity to be represented by an attorney, who also receives notice, with Respondents permitted to extend the deadline at Petitioner's request; and a requirement that the neutral decisionmaker consider his financial circumstances in setting bond and alternative release conditions. Respondents must give the order to the immigration judge and ensure the hearing is recorded. If no compliant hearing occurs, Respondents must release Petitioner immediately and may not re-detain him without at least seven days' notice and a hearing consistent with the order. The clerk was directed to serve the facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief and ordered a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than accepting Respondents' mandatory-detention position under § 1225(b), which they themselves acknowledged was contrary to binding Ninth Circuit authority.
- The order sets a short timeline: an initial custody determination within 48 hours and, if detention continues under a granted warrant, a bond hearing within 10 days of that determination.
- The hearing must include 72 hours' written notice in an understandable language, a chance to be represented by counsel, a recorded proceeding, and consideration of financial circumstances in setting bond and alternative conditions.
- Noncompliance triggers immediate release and bars re-detention without seven days' notice and a compliant hearing.
- The order does not decide whether Petitioner will ultimately be released, since bond remains for the hearing, and it is an unpublished district court ruling without precedential weight.
Why It Matters
The order shows how an Eastern District of California judge handled a case in which the government preserved a § 1225(b) mandatory-detention objection while acknowledging that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock points the other way. The remedy is notably detailed, combining the statutory bond-hearing framework with notice, language, counsel, recording, and ability-to-pay safeguards.
Its reach is limited. It is a single-petitioner, unpublished district court order that adds little reasoning beyond adopting the findings, so it carries no precedential weight. The warrant step and the 10-day schedule are case-specific remedial terms, and the order does not resolve the merits of any bond determination or any later challenge to detention.