Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ramkrishna KC, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 1:26-cv-02376-KES-FJS (HC). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Respondents — the Warden of the California City Detention Facility and others — moved to dismiss (Doc. 7), arguing that KC is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). The order states that KC had been continuously detained since January 3, 2025, a period of more than twenty-one months.
On August 21, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (Doc. 13) recommending that the court deny respondents' motion to dismiss, grant the habeas petition in part, and order respondents to provide a bond hearing. The recommendations were served with notice that objections were due within fourteen days. On September 8, 2026, respondents filed objections (Doc. 14) incorporating the reasons in their previous briefing. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court reviewed the matter de novo, including the objections and the record. The order is dated October 16, 2026, and was filed on October 17, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis, and it adopted them in full. It explained that this court and numerous district courts have determined that the unreasonably prolonged detention of individuals such as KC under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause, citing Freitez Lopez v. Warden of California City Detention Center, Mohammed v. Warden of California City Detention Center, and Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (W.D. Wash. 2019). On that basis, the court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus in part and denied respondents' motion to dismiss.
Respondents are ordered to provide KC with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen days. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that KC is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond, applying Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). The immigration judge should also consider KC's financial circumstances in setting the amount of bond and alternative conditions of release in lieu of detention without bond. If respondents do not provide the hearing within fourteen days, they must release him.
The order further directs respondents to immediately provide KC with a copy of the order and to give him seventy-two hours' written notice before the bond hearing in a language he can understand. KC may be represented by an attorney at the hearing, and respondents may extend the deadline at his request so that he can obtain counsel; if he obtains an attorney, that attorney must also receive seventy-two hours' written notice. Finally, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case, enter judgment for petitioner, terminate any remaining motions as moot, and serve the California City Detention Facility with a copy of the order.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
- The court treated unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without a bond hearing as a violation of the Due Process Clause.
- The government bears the burden at the ordered hearing to justify denial of bond by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
- The immigration judge should consider KC's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release when setting bond.
- Failure to provide the bond hearing within fourteen days requires respondents to release KC.
Why It Matters
The order provides a concrete remedy for prolonged immigration detention rather than simply declaring a legal violation. It combines a firm fourteen-day hearing deadline with a conditional release requirement, allocates the burden of proof to the government, and requires consideration of financial circumstances and alternatives to detention, giving the due process holding practical force.
The decision also illustrates the effect of adopting a magistrate judge's recommendations after de novo review: the habeas petition was granted in part, the dismissal motion was denied, and judgment was directed for the petitioner. The order does not itself set a bond amount or decide the ultimate custody outcome after the required hearing.