Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Federico Rojas Hernandez, an immigration detainee held at Central Valley Annex (A# 222-629-536), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his prolonged detention without a bond hearing. The Court had previously addressed the legal issues raised in the petition in two prior decisions: Morillo v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01533-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 3190899 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025), and E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01906-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 3707140 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court directed Respondents to file a return showing cause why the writ should not be granted and Petitioner released.
In response to the Court's order to show cause, Respondents conceded that binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, — F.4th —, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing for immigration detainees. The concession acknowledged that the lengthy delay in providing Petitioner with this statutorily mandated bond hearing violated his due process rights and justified release. The Court found that the reasoning in its prior orders, combined with Respondents' concession and the intervening Ninth Circuit authority, warranted granting the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) for the reasons stated in its prior orders in Morillo and E.L.D.M., as reinforced by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock and Respondents' concession. The Court ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner Federico Rojas Hernandez from their custody. Respondents are prohibited from imposing any additional restrictions on Petitioner unless such restrictions are determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing.
The Court further ordered that if the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. The Order explicitly does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. Respondents are required to file a status report within five (5) days confirming Petitioner's release. The Clerk is directed to serve Central Valley Annex with a copy of the Order, close the case, and enter judgment for Petitioner, resolving all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted habeas relief and ordered immediate release of an immigration detainee based on the government's concession that Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing.
- Prolonged detention without a statutorily mandated bond hearing violates due process, warranting release as a remedy.
- Any future re-detention requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- The release order does not impose additional restrictions on the petitioner unless justified at a future hearing.
- The Court's ruling aligns with its prior decisions in Morillo v. Albarran and E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, extending their reasoning to this petitioner.
Why It Matters
This release order applies the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock decision to grant habeas relief to an immigration detainee held without a timely bond hearing. The ruling reinforces that statutory bond-hearing rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) are enforceable through habeas corpus, and that prolonged denial of such hearings constitutes a due process violation warranting release. The decision establishes a clear procedural framework for any future re-detention: seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter. By incorporating its prior reasoning from Morillo and E.L.D.M., the Court signals a consistent approach to similar detention challenges in the Eastern District of California, potentially affecting numerous immigration detainees awaiting bond hearings.