Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ricardo Lopez Patishtan, a native of Mexico who had lived in the United States for 17 years, was taken into ICE custody in May 2026 and transferred to the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield. On July 24, 2026, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting his detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The magistrate judge issued an order on July 28, 2026, prohibiting respondents from transferring Petitioner out of the Eastern District of California.
Respondents opposed the petition, stating that on July 27, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed and all parties waived appeal. On September 3, 2026, respondents informed the court that a Florida state court judge had issued a bench warrant for Petitioner on July 17, 2026. On August 31, 2026, Petitioner was released from immigration custody and taken into custody by an extradition team from Blue Knight Corporation pursuant to the bench warrant.
The Court’s Holding
The district court withdrew the reference to the magistrate judge and dismissed the petition as moot. Because Petitioner was ordered removed on July 27, 2026, and did not appeal within the thirty-day window, his removal order became final. His detention authority therefore shifted from 8 U.S.C. § 1226 to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(2), which mandates detention during a ninety-day removal period. The court held that a petition challenging detention under § 1226 is rendered moot when detention authority shifts to § 1231, citing Baires v. Lynch and Eastern District of California precedent. The court declined to address whether the initial detention under § 1226 violated due process or whether the transfer to state authorities violated the magistrate judge's no-transfer order, as the petition was moot given the change in detention authority.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petition challenging detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 becomes moot when a final removal order issues and detention authority shifts to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).
- A removal order becomes final upon expiration of the 30-day appeal period if no appeal is filed (8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(c)).
- The court will not reach the merits of a due process challenge to initial detention once the statutory basis for detention has changed to mandatory post-removal-order detention.
- The court declined to rule on whether respondents violated the magistrate judge's no-transfer order by releasing petitioner to state authorities pursuant to a bench warrant.
- The district court withdrew the reference to the magistrate judge sua sponte 'in the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.'
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural hurdle faced by immigration detainees who challenge their detention under § 1226 but obtain a final removal order before the court reaches the merits. Once the removal order becomes final, the statutory framework shifts to § 1231's mandatory detention scheme, rendering the prior challenge moot.
The court's refusal to address the potential violation of its own no-transfer order—where ICE released the petitioner to a private extradition company for state custody—leaves open questions about the enforceability of such orders when detention authority changes. The decision follows established Ninth Circuit and district court precedent holding that the shift from pre-removal to post-removal detention authority moots § 1226 challenges.