Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roger Nolasco Gutierrez petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus while in federal immigration detention after being re-detained following a period of parole. The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 14 proposing that the petition be granted in part and that Gutierrez be released unless the government provided him an individualized bond hearing within seven days of the order. Gutierrez filed objections at ECF No. 15 arguing that the Due Process Clause instead required his immediate release and a hearing before re-detention, not merely a post-deprivation bond hearing.
The district court reviewed the petition, the records on file, and the Report under 28 U.S.C. § 636, including de novo review of the portions to which objections could have been made. It organized the objections into three arguments: first, that Gutierrez was not a member of the class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, later entered as Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, and therefore was not limited to a bond-hearing remedy; second, that his prior parole entitled him to pre-deprivation notice and a hearing; and third, that the government's asserted justification rested on unauthenticated records of his supervision violations.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the class-membership objection because the Report never relied on membership in the Maldonado Bautista class. Instead, the Report analyzed the claims under procedural due process and concluded that, given the particular circumstances—including allegations that Gutierrez violated Intensive Supervision Appearance Program conditions twenty-nine times over roughly four years of parole—a post-deprivation bond hearing would satisfy due process.
The court likewise agreed that Gutierrez was not entitled to pre-deprivation process before being re-detained. It distinguished the release decisions he cited by emphasizing the number and span of the alleged violations—ten missed biometric check-ins, failed virtual home and office visits, missed tracker callbacks, and missed in-person office and home visits stretching from 2022 until the day before re-detention. Those allegations, the Report reasoned, lessened the risk of erroneous deprivation because they suggested a factual, nonarbitrary basis for imposing the ankle monitor and re-detaining him, and Gutierrez offered no credible alternative explanation for the violations beyond claiming he was unaware of them.
Finally, the court found the authentication objection unpersuasive. The alleged violations appeared on Form I-831 as a continuation of Form I-213, bore Gutierrez's fingerprints, and were part of his A-File. Citing Gonzalez-Utz v. Garland and Vatyan v. Mukasey, the court held this was sufficient evidence that the documents were what their proponent claimed. Finding no defect of law, fact, or logic, the court accepted the Report, overruled the objections, granted habeas relief as to Claim Two, dismissed the remaining claims, and directed entry of judgment granting the petition in part. Respondents must release Gutierrez unless, within seven days of the order, he receives an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted partial habeas relief rather than ordering the unconditional release Gutierrez sought.
- A post-deprivation individualized bond hearing was held sufficient under the case's particular circumstances.
- The court rejected the argument that relief depended on Gutierrez's membership in the Maldonado Bautista class because the Report had used a procedural due process analysis.
- Forms I-213 and I-831 were adequately supported for authentication by the petitioner's fingerprints and their inclusion in his A-File.
- If the required hearing is not provided within seven days, the order requires Gutierrez's release.
Why It Matters
The decision explains why this petitioner's extensive alleged supervision violations supported re-detention without a pre-detention hearing while still requiring prompt individualized process afterward. It also distinguishes a procedural due process analysis from class-based relief, making the petitioner's asserted exclusion from the Maldonado Bautista class immaterial to the Report's recommendation.
The order supplies a concrete remedy: an immigration judge must conduct an individualized hearing under § 1226(a), and the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. The remaining claims were dismissed, and the order directed entry of judgment granting the petition only in part.