Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michel Pierre, a Haitian national, entered the United States without inspection in June 2024 and presented himself to U.S. Border Patrol through the CBP One application. He was processed with a Notice to Appear and released on his own recognizance, and his asylum application has been pending since January 13, 2025. The court noted no indication of a criminal history, flight risk, or danger to the community. On May 26, 2026, he was arrested after a traffic stop and taken into ICE custody at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California.
On September 23, 2026, Pierre petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that his detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. On October 15, 2026, the government responded that his detention rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The case had been referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, but the district judge withdrew the reference, citing the interest of justice and judicial efficiency, and ruled on the petition directly in a short order dated October 22, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), the court found that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Pierre's detention. It also cited earlier Eastern District of California habeas rulings, including J.S.H.M. v. Wofford and Carlos v. Chestnut, and concluded for the reasons articulated in those cases that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The order itself does not restate that reasoning.
The court granted the petition and ordered Pierre released immediately. It enjoined the respondents from re-detaining him unless the government gives at least seven days' advance notice and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under § 1226(a) and applicable regulations. At that hearing, his bond eligibility must be considered, and the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community such that physical custody is legally justified. The clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for Pierre.
A footnote adds two qualifications. If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without advance notice, a post-deprivation hearing meeting the same requirements must be held within seven days of the arrest. And if Pierre becomes subject to a final order of removal and receives notice of it, respondents may detain him for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal, and must provide a bond hearing in the timeframe required by law.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), as governing the detention of a noncitizen who entered without inspection, was released on recognizance with a Notice to Appear, and was later arrested after a traffic stop.
- The court found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process, relying on its earlier decisions rather than new detailed analysis.
- The relief is a conditioned injunction, not a bar on all future detention: re-detention requires seven days' notice and a bond hearing at which the government bears a clear-and-convincing burden.
- The order does not decide Pierre's asylum application or removability; it addresses only the lawfulness of his custody.
- Because this is an unreported district court order, its influence beyond this case depends on the authorities it cites.
Why It Matters
The order shows how this district court is applying the Ninth Circuit authority it cites when the government invokes the mandatory-detention provision of § 1225(b)(2) against people previously released on recognizance. Tying relief to § 1226(a) gives the detainee individualized bond review in which the government carries the burden.
Its reach is limited. It is a single-judge order that incorporates prior rulings by reference, binds only the parties, and leaves removal and asylum proceedings open. The conditions on future re-detention, including the carve-outs for arrests without notice and for a final removal order, will matter if the government seeks to detain Pierre again. Readers should consult the cited Ninth Circuit decision and earlier orders for fuller reasoning.