Alfredo Escobar Preciado v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 4, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-04170
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFREDO ESCOBAR PRECIADO, No. 1:26-cv-04170-DAD-AC (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, GRANTING MOTION 14 WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DETENTION FACILITY, DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 15 RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT, AND Respondent. DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 16 COUNSEL AS MOOT

17 (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4) 18 19 20 On June 1, 2026, petitioner Alfredo Escobar Preciado, a federal immigration detainee 21 proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a motion for temporary restraining 22 order, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis,1 and a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 23 3, 4.) On June 2, 2026, the court issued an order setting a briefing schedule on the pending 24 motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 8.) In that same order, the court directed 25 respondent to indicate in respondent’s opposition whether this case is substantively 26 distinguishable from the circumstances addressed in several of the court’s prior orders. (Id.) The 27 1 Petitioner’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is therefore 28 granted. 1 court further indicated that it would rule directly on the merits of the underlying petition if it 2 determined that it would grant the motion for temporary restraining order and directed respondent 3 to provide substantive reasons in support of any objection that respondent had to the court taking 4 such action. (Id.) 5 On the same day, respondent filed an opposition to the pending motion. (Doc. No. 10.) 6 Therein, respondent states “there do not appear to be any substantive factual or legal issues in this 7 case that materially distinguish it from the cases identified in the Order.” (Id. at 2) (citing Doc. 8 No. 8). Nonetheless, respondent argues that petitioner is an “applicant for admission” subject to 9 mandatory detention by ICE pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because petitioner “entered the 10 United States illegally.” (Id. at 1.) Respondent has further requested the court to both resolve the 11 merits of the underlying petition “on the current briefing and without a hearing[]” and “not enjoin 12 ICE from imposing reasonable conditions of supervision” if the court orders petitioner’s 13 immediate release from custody. (Id. at 1–2.) 14 Petitioner alleges that he entered the United States in 1989. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) He further 15 alleges that he was issued a social security card and work permit in 2024. (Id.) Petitioner 16 contends, and respondent does not dispute, that he was arrested while attending an adjustment of 17 status interview on May 12, 2026 without any prior warning. (Id. at 6; Doc. No. 2 at 2.) 18 Petitioner argues that his detention is unlawful because respondent has not provided him 19 with a bond hearing. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 48–49.) He further alleges that the government has 20 detained him pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), so, absent court intervention, he lacks any statutory 21 or regulatory avenue to obtain a bond hearing before a neutral adjudicator. (Id. at ¶¶ 21–22.) 22 Pursuant to the reasoning set forth in its prior order in Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, Cal. 23 City Corr. Ctr., No. 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB, 2026 WL 679378, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 24 2026), the court concludes that petitioner can only be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 25 § 1225(b) as respondent argues. Further, because respondent has failed to offer any alternative 26 authority to justify petitioner’s detention, the court concludes that the appropriate remedy under 27 the circumstances is to order petitioner’s immediate release from custody. See J.P.C. v. Chestnut, 28 No. 1:26-cv-02108-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 788129, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026); Valencia 1 Cardenas v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2 Mar. 20, 2026).2 3 With respect to respondent’s request that the court not enjoin respondent from imposing 4 conditions of supervision on petitioner upon his release from custody, respondent fails to cite any 5 legal authority to support the proposition that the government may impose any conditions on 6 someone that has been unlawfully detained for several weeks. To be sure, a non-citizen with 7 pending removal proceedings may be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and subsequently 8 release on conditional parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226. However, respondent does not argue that 9 petitioner is subject to detention pursuant to § 1226(a) and does not provide evidence that 10 petitioner was arrested “on a warrant” as is required for detention pursuant to that provision. See 11 A.E.R.T. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01824-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3645297, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Cal. 12 Dec. 16, 2025) (collecting cases holding that a noncitizen may not be detained pursuant to 8 13 U.S.C. § 1226(a) where arrested in the absence of a warrant). Accordingly, the court cannot 14 identify any applicable legal authority which would authorize respondent to impose conditions of 15 release on petitioner and must therefore reject respondent’s request in this regard. 16 For the reasons stated above, 17 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED as 18 follows: 19 a. Respondent is ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Alfredo 20 Escobar Preciado, A-File No. 070-220-594, from respondent’s custody; 21 b. Respondent is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner 22 for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without written notice and a 23 hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 2 While not directly raised by either party, the court notes that the government’s decision to take 27 petitioner into custody while petitioner was attending an adjustment of status appointment is also a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See Franco v. Meyer, No. 1:25-cv-01620- 28 DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3280782, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025). ] 2. Petitioner’s motions for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) and to appoint 2 counsel (Doc. No. 4) are DENIED as having been rendered moot by this order 3 granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus; 4 3. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED; and 5 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the Golden State Annex detention 6 facility with a copy of this order; and 7 5. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and 8 to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 3, 2026 Dal A. 2, axel 1] DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28