Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edzer Thelisma, proceeding without counsel, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his ongoing immigration detention at the California City Detention Facility, and he moved for a temporary restraining order. The order states that he was detained on September 15, 2026, after living in the United States under conditions of release. Count One of the petition asserted a due process claim based on detention without a pre-deprivation bond hearing; the order does not describe the petition's other grounds.
On October 15, 2026, the court told the parties it was considering ruling directly on the petition and asked Respondents to identify any factual or legal issue that materially distinguished the case from its earlier orders in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, Labrador-Prato v. Noem, and D.L.C. v. Wofford. On October 19, Respondents opposed on the same grounds raised in those cases, contending that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) is the basis for detention. They acknowledged, though, that this case falls in the category where the petitioner's parole into the United States matters more than his manner of entry, and they did not oppose a ruling directly on the petition. They also asserted that Thelisma has developed significant criminal history since entry.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition and the TRO motion as to Count One. It stated that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), citing Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. It then applied its prior rulings that the Due Process Clause requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which bond eligibility is considered, before the government may re-detain someone previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole. Respondents offered no new legal argument and no distinguishing issue.
The criminal history assertion did not change the result because Respondents neither argued nor explained why it made the earlier determination inapplicable. The court cited decisions from this court and another district in the Ninth Circuit finding that due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing despite alleged criminal conduct when the government does not tie that history to the risk of erroneous deprivation. Following Altin v. Chestnut, it held that immediate release is the proper remedy for the missing hearing. Because Thelisma is pro se, it did not wait for a reply.
Thelisma must be released immediately on the same conditions that applied before his detention, with no added restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future pre-deprivation hearing finds them necessary. Respondents must return his documents and possessions and file a notice of compliance within three days. Any re-detention requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter. The court did not reach the petition's other grounds, and it expressly left open when Respondents may detain him if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal with notice. Judgment was entered for Petitioner and the case closed.
Key Takeaways
- Under this court's reading of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, noncitizens present without admission who are arrested in the interior are held under the discretionary authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
- Due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter before the government may re-detain a noncitizen previously released on bond, conditional parole, or humanitarian parole.
- Alleged criminal history did not defeat the claim because the government failed to explain how it affects the need for a hearing.
- The remedy for the missing hearing was release on prior conditions, with seven days' notice and a hearing required before any re-detention.
- The ruling does not decide the government's detention authority if Thelisma becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
The order shows how the Eastern District of California is applying its earlier due process decisions to re-detention cases, treating the issue as largely settled when the government raises no new argument. It also shows the court willing to resolve a TRO motion and habeas petition together, on an expedited record, when the government does not object to that course.
Its reach is limited. It is a district court order that binds the parties and carries persuasive weight only, and it rests on Count One alone. Whether detention would be permissible after an executable final removal order, and what a future bond hearing would decide, remain open. A criminal record may matter if the government actually develops an argument about its bearing on the risk of erroneous deprivation.