Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alejandro Guache Valdez, a Cuban citizen proceeding pro se, is an immigration detainee at California City who petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court drew part of the background from his earlier habeas case. It says he entered the United States around May 2022 and was not encountered or processed by federal immigration officials. He was arrested for petty theft in April 2025 and for alien smuggling in October 2025, and ICE detained him on October 24, 2025. The court noted it was unclear whether the criminal matters are still pending.
This is his third habeas filing. The first, filed April 1, 2026, was granted on April 23, 2026, with an order for a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen days. A second petition, filed June 2, 2026, was dismissed as duplicative or moot because it re-argued the same pre-deprivation hearing injury. In this case, filed June 10, 2026, the assigned district judge denied a temporary restraining order as untimely on July 7, 2026. Valdez later moved to amend and lodged a first amended petition, which was referred to the magistrate judge.
Valdez alleges that prolonged detention violates the Fifth Amendment and that continued detention is unjustified or excessive. He also alleges that hemorrhoids have worsened in detention and that he has had difficulty getting adequate, consistent treatment. An immigration judge denied bond. The judge cited a record that includes driving offenses, grand theft, battery of a detainee, and an April 2026 assault on a staff member at the detention center. The judge also noted unknown family ties, no known sponsor, and no pending relief applications.
The Court’s Holding
The ruling has two parts with different force. As an order, the magistrate judge construed the motion to amend as a motion to supplement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) and granted it. The court reasoned that granting such a motion does not dispose of a claim or preclude the ultimate relief sought, so a magistrate judge may decide it. The court considered the supplement together with the petition, the response, and the traverse.
As a recommendation, the court proposes that the petition and supplement be denied. It liberally construed the claims as procedural and substantive due process claims. On procedural due process, it relied on Rodriguez Diaz, in which the Ninth Circuit held that § 1226(a)'s procedures satisfy due process. That decision also held that no second bond hearing with a clear-and-convincing burden on the government was required fourteen months after the first hearing. Rodriguez Diaz leaves room for some as-applied challenges, but Valdez did not show his case was distinguishable.
On substantive due process, the court weighed three factors from its earlier decisions: length of detention, evidence supporting danger or flight risk, and conditions of confinement. About twelve months of detention did not favor Valdez, given decisions upholding longer detentions of twenty-one and thirty months. Reviewing the bond decision for abuse of discretion, the court found the immigration judge considered criminal history, family and community ties, and the likelihood of relief. Valdez did not claim favorable evidence was ignored. The court declined to apply the Jones presumption of punitive conditions to immigration detainees, noting the Ninth Circuit's caution in Fraihat. It found that his medical complaints, though concerning, did not make the conditions factor favor him, citing Shafaq, where a more serious medical claim did not warrant release. Balancing all three factors, the court found no entitlement to relief.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se motion to amend that seeks to add current detention facts may be construed as a Rule 15(d) motion to supplement, and granting it is treated as nondispositive.
- The recommendation treats Rodriguez Diaz as controlling on procedural due process unless a § 1226(a) detainee shows a distinguishing as-applied basis.
- About twelve months of immigration detention was not treated as excessive for substantive due process purposes, in light of longer detentions the court cited as upheld.
- The court will not reweigh an immigration judge's danger and flight-risk findings if the correct standard was applied and no favorable evidence is shown to have been ignored.
- Generalized allegations of inadequate treatment for a medical condition did not make the conditions-of-confinement factor favor release.
Why It Matters
This is a magistrate judge's recommendation, not a final ruling. It is unreported and not binding on any court, and it takes effect only if the assigned district judge adopts it. The parties have fourteen days to file objections, so the outcome on the petition remains open.
Its value is as an example of how courts in this district apply Rodriguez Diaz and a three-factor substantive due process test to prolonged § 1226(a) detention. Because the earlier case produced a bond hearing, the decision also shows that a detainee who has had that hearing faces a heavy burden when later attacking its outcome without pointing to ignored evidence or a legal error.