Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gonzalo Basurto-Milan, an immigration detainee held at the California City Detention Center, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. The court said it had already addressed the legal issues in earlier decisions, Morillo v. Albarran (Nov. 15, 2025) and E.L.D.M. v. Becerra (Dec. 22, 2025). Those decisions are cited but not reproduced, so this article relies only on what the release order says. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court directed Respondents to file a return showing cause why the writ and release should not be granted on the same basis.
After the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock on July 30, 2026, Respondents conceded that binding precedent establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing. They also noted that a Form I-286 had been filed with the immigration court to attempt to trigger a hearing. The court observed that Petitioner had requested a bond hearing more than a month before the order and had not received one.
The document is a short district court release order rather than a published opinion, and it incorporates the earlier orders for much of its reasoning.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for the reasons stated in its prior orders and added a short explanation: the lengthy delay in providing the statutorily mandated bond hearing violated Petitioner's due process rights and justified release. The Form I-286 filing, described only as an attempt to trigger a hearing, did not change that result.
The remedy is release with conditions on any re-detention. Respondents must immediately release Petitioner and may not impose additional restrictions unless a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing finds them necessary. If the government seeks to re-detain him, it must give at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which his eligibility for bond must be considered. Respondents must file a status report within five days of release confirming it. The Clerk was directed to serve the detention facility, close the case, and enter judgment for Petitioner. All pending motions were resolved.
The order is limited. It expressly does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. It also does not decide any removal question or whether bond would ultimately be granted, which is left to the hearing required before any re-detention.
Key Takeaways
- Respondents conceded that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing, and the court treated the lengthy delay in providing that hearing as a due process violation warranting release.
- A Form I-286 filed with the immigration court to attempt to trigger a hearing did not prevent release where Petitioner had requested a hearing more than a month earlier and had not received one.
- Release came with a safeguard: any re-detention requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under section 1226(a).
- The order expressly leaves open detention after an executable final order of removal, and it does not decide whether bond will ultimately be granted.
- The court entered judgment for Petitioner and closed the case, but required a status report within five days confirming release.
Why It Matters
This order shows how one Eastern District of California judge applies the Ninth Circuit's Rodriguez Vazquez decision in an individual habeas case. Once the government concedes the statutory right to a bond hearing, delay in providing it can support immediate release rather than only an order to hold a hearing. The reasoning rests on delay after a request, not on a broader holding about the length of detention generally, and the order does not identify any hearing date.
Its precedential weight is limited. It is an unreported district court order that relies on earlier orders for most of its analysis and binds only the parties. Practitioners should read Morillo and E.L.D.M. for the underlying legal reasoning and should note that the order does not resolve detention following a final removal order. The re-detention conditions, seven days' notice and a neutral-arbiter hearing, were tailored to this petitioner, though they may be a useful reference for similar requests.