Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, identified in the order only as Richekardsain M. because the court omitted his full name to protect sensitive personal information, is an immigration detainee who filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 19, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF No. 16), which gave the parties three days to file objections.
Respondents, including Garrett Ripa, filed objections stating only that they relied on the reasons in their prior pleadings (ECF No. 17). The order does not describe the magistrate judge's reasoning or the factual history of the detention and earlier release, and those findings were not among the materials reviewed for this article. The order does show that Petitioner had previously been released on conditions, that he is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that he is not yet described as subject to a final and executable removal order.
The Court’s Holding
Conducting the de novo review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, Chief United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis. The order, dated October 26, 2026 and filed October 27, adopts them in full and grants the petition. It is a final disposition of the petition: the clerk was directed to enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close the case.
Respondents must immediately release Petitioner on the same conditions as his prior release and return all of his documents and possessions at the time of release. They may not impose additional restrictions unless a future pre-deprivation hearing determines that they are necessary.
The court also enjoined re-detention while Petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) unless the government complies with statutory and constitutional protections, including 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's appearance at future immigration proceedings outweighs his constitutionally protected interest in remaining free, such that no alternative to detention can mitigate the 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 without further discussion. If Petitioner becomes subject to a final and executable removal order, the government must give at least seven days' notice, counted from the date the order becomes final and executable, of any intent to execute it and detain him.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the § 2241 petition and ordered immediate release on the same conditions as Petitioner's prior release, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations in full after de novo review.
- Respondents' objections rested solely on their earlier pleadings, and the court found the recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis.
- Re-detention while Petitioner is subject to § 1226(a) requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder, with counsel permitted.
- At that hearing the government carries a clear-and-convincing burden and must show that no alternative to detention can mitigate the risk.
- The order does not set out the underlying merits reasoning, so its significance is limited to the relief ordered in this individual case.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a court in this district may pair release with prospective procedural protections for a person detained under § 1226(a). Rather than only ordering release, it conditions any future re-detention on advance notice, a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and a heightened government burden, and it extends a seven-day notice requirement to the execution of a later final removal order.
Its reach is limited. It is an unpublished district court order in a single habeas case, and it cites Zadvydas and Hernandez without explaining the legal basis in its text. Open questions include the rationale in the magistrate judge's findings, the detention history, and whether respondents will appeal. Other courts are not bound by it, though practitioners may find the specific protections instructive.