Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Roisbel E.G., an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention at the Central Valley Annex Center. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 29, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were due within three days. Respondents filed untimely objections that appeared to contain typographical errors in the caption, case number, and citations, and which the court noted may have been filed in error. Regardless, the district court conducted a de novo review of the entire file.
The district court, Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley presiding, reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and the record. The court found the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court then entered a release order adopting the findings and recommendations in full, granting the habeas petition, and imposing specific conditions on petitioner’s release and any future detention. The order directs the clerk to serve it on the Central Valley Annex Center, enter judgment in favor of petitioner, and close the case.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full and granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ordered respondents to immediately release petitioner Roisbel E.G. (A# 220-849-277) from custody with the same conditions to which he was subject immediately prior to his detention on February 28, 2026, and to return all of petitioner’s documents and possessions at the time of release. Respondents were required to file a notice of compliance within two court days.
The court further enjoined respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining petitioner while he is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections, including a minimum of seven-days’ notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that its interest in protecting the public or ensuring petitioner’s appearance outweighs his constitutionally protected interest in remaining free from detention such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that risk. The order also provides that petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present at any such hearing, and that if petitioner becomes subject to a final and executable order of removal, the government shall provide a minimum of seven days’ notice of any intent to execute the order and detain petitioner. The clerk was directed to serve the order, enter judgment in favor of petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court conducted a de novo review and adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full, granting the habeas petition.
- Petitioner Roisbel E.G. must be released immediately with pre-detention conditions restored and all documents and possessions returned.
- Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without providing at least seven days’ notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified and no alternative exists.
- Petitioner has the right to counsel at any such hearing, and if a final removal order becomes executable, the government must give seven days’ notice before executing it and detaining petitioner.
- The clerk is directed to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces due-process protections for immigration detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) by requiring advance notice and a meaningful hearing before any re-detention, consistent with Zadvydas v. Davis and Hernandez v. Sessions. It also illustrates the district court’s willingness to enforce magistrate judges’ recommendations even when respondents file untimely or defective objections, ensuring prompt relief for petitioners who establish unlawful detention.
The release order is notable for its specificity: it restores the precise pre-detention conditions, requires return of documents and possessions, imposes a two-court-day compliance deadline, and sets out a clear procedural framework for any future detention. By entering judgment and closing the case, the court provides finality while preserving petitioner’s right to counsel and notice if removal proceedings become executable.