Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Acinto Pete Trapp, a native of Belize proceeding without counsel, is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 5, 2026. He alleges he has lived in the United States for more than 40 years and that he was detained in 2000 and granted conditional bail to file for a change of status, which he says he did, although ICE states it has no record of him. He also alleges he has never committed major crimes or felonies, poses no flight risk or danger, and cannot support his spouse and five United States-born children while detained.
Respondent's evidence showed that immigration officials located Trapp in jail on or about August 7, 2026, after an arrest for a moving traffic violation, and that he has pending cases arising from that arrest and from prior arrests for battery, possession of forged documents, and a traffic offense. Respondent, the warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, argued Trapp is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), received a notice of custody determination on October 13, 2026, and must request a hearing and exhaust administrative remedies through the immigration court. Respondent did not object to the bond hearing that § 1226(a) provides. Trapp later moved for a temporary restraining order. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.
The Court’s Holding
This is a recommendation to the assigned district judge, not a final order. The magistrate judge reasons that Trapp was apprehended in the interior of the United States and removal proceedings are ongoing, so 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs. She cites Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), which held that noncitizens present without admission and apprehended in the interior fall under § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A). Under § 1226(a), the findings conclude, Trapp is entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
On exhaustion, the findings treat the requirement as prudential, not jurisdictional. Respondent's evidence was that Trapp was offered review of his custody determination around October 13, 2026 and declined review by an immigration judge. But he had been in custody since about August 7, should have received an initial bond hearing well before then, and was given the opportunity only after filing his petition. Because ICE gave no notice of available review for more than two months, the findings conclude administrative remedies were inadequate or not efficacious and exhaustion should be waived.
The findings conclude detention violates § 1226(a). They note the record lacks evidence that officials previously released Trapp after finding no danger or flight risk, so the heightened liberty interest recognized in a Northern District case for such petitioners was not invoked. The recommended disposition is to grant the petition, order a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days of adoption of the findings, deny the temporary restraining order as moot, and direct entry of judgment and closure of the case. Objections are due within seven days of service. The findings do not recommend release and do not decide the outcome of the hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge recommends that interior apprehension of a noncitizen with ongoing removal proceedings places detention under § 1226(a), which carries a bond hearing.
- The findings treat exhaustion as prudential and recommend waiver where ICE gave no notice of available review for more than two months after detention.
- Respondent's evidence that Trapp declined review on October 13 did not defeat relief, because that offer came after the petition was filed and long after custody began.
- The recommended remedy is a bond hearing, not release, and it takes effect only if the district judge adopts the findings.
- Because this is an unpublished recommendation, it carries no precedential weight, and the district judge may accept, reject, or modify it.
Why It Matters
The findings show how an Eastern District of California magistrate judge applies Rodriguez Vazquez and the Ninth Circuit's prudential exhaustion doctrine when the government offers review only after a habeas petition is filed. The reasoning rests on the statute, § 1226(a), rather than a constitutional due process holding.
Its weight is limited. It is an unpublished, unadopted recommendation with no precedential force, and the district judge's ruling on any objections remains pending. If adopted, relief is confined to a bond hearing within 14 days, and the detention decision itself stays with the immigration judge.