Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Twizeyimana Dieudonne, a citizen of Rwanda, has been in ICE custody since March 2024, after charges of gross sexual assault and simple assault were entered against him. He was later convicted of negligent assault in March 2026, and the gross sexual assault charges were dismissed. DHS began removal proceedings in February 2024. An immigration judge granted withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection in December 2024, but the Board of Immigration Appeals remanded for a new credibility assessment after DHS appealed. On December 2, 2025, the judge reversed course and ordered him removed. While this federal petition was pending, the Board dismissed his appeal on September 11, 2026. He has sought First Circuit review, but the record does not show a stay of removal.
His custody was reviewed repeatedly. An immigration judge denied release in March 2024 as a flight risk. A redetermination request was denied in November 2024 for lack of materially changed circumstances. After a second redetermination hearing in November 2025, the judge again denied release, finding him both a flight risk and a danger to the community. In June 2026 the District of Massachusetts denied an earlier habeas petition without prejudice, concluding he was held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and had not carried his burden. He was then transferred to the California City Detention Center and filed this pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleges he has not received proper medication for his HIV diagnosis there and has suffered dangerous high blood pressure, wounds, and bruising; the court made no findings on those allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court first declined to dismiss the petition as successive. The bar in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) applies only to petitions under § 2254, not this § 2241 petition. The Ninth Circuit does allow abuse of the writ to support dismissal of a § 2241 petition, but the court assumed without deciding that Respondents met their initial burden and found that Petitioner would be prejudiced by dismissal. The earlier petition was dismissed without prejudice, over five months had passed, and the transfer and alleged medical neglect were new facts relevant to due process. The court therefore reached the merits.
On the merits, the court held that detention authority shifted from § 1226(a) to § 1231(a)(2) on September 11, 2026. The Board's dismissal made the removal order administratively final, and with no stay in the record the 90-day removal period began that day. The court noted that prolonged detention continuing into the removal period may violate due process, and assumed Petitioner could bring an as-applied challenge even within the 90 days. It nonetheless concluded he had not shown his detention had become unconstitutionally prolonged.
Following Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, the court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge factors. It recognized Petitioner's substantial private interest given his lengthy detention and alleged inadequate medical care, but found the second and third factors favored the Government. He had received two bond hearings, could seek further review upon changed circumstances under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e), had used that right, and had not raised due process concerns about those hearings in his petition. The Government has a strong interest in protecting the public and in executing a final removal order, given his 2026 conviction. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, directed the clerk to close the case and enter judgment for Respondents, and resolved all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- Section 2244(b)'s successive-petition bar does not govern § 2241 immigration habeas petitions, though abuse of the writ remains available.
- A prior without-prejudice denial, elapsed time, and new facts such as a transfer can weigh against an abuse-of-the-writ dismissal.
- A Board decision dismissing an appeal makes the removal order administratively final and, absent a stay, starts the 90-day removal period under § 1231(a)(1).
- More than two years in custody did not establish a due process violation on this record, because the second and third Mathews factors favored the Government.
Why It Matters
This district court order is not reported and carries no binding precedential weight, but it shows how an Eastern District of California judge applies Mathews to prolonged detention after a Board decision moves a detainee into § 1231(a)(2). The dismissal is without prejudice and rests on the record as of October 2026; it does not decide how the analysis would change if the removal period expires without removal, if a stay issues, or if the medical-care allegations are developed in a new filing.