Jesus Alonso De Niz Mendez and Jesus Noel Rodriguez Mariscal v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-02404
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JESUS ALONSO DE NIZ MENDEZ and Case No. 1:26-cv-2404-JLT-SAB-HC JESUS NOEL RODRIGUEZ MARISCAL, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO Petitioners, GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 HABEAS CORPUS, DENY v. RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, 14 AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., PROVIDE PETITIONERS WITH BOND 15 HEARINGS Respondents. 16 (ECF Nos. 1, 7)

17 18 Petitioners are immigration detainees proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Jesus Alonso De Niz Mendez (“Petitioner De Niz Mendez”) and Jesus Noel Rodriguez 23 Mariscal (“Petitioner Rodriguez Mariscal”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) are citizens of Mexico 24 currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the California City 25 Corrections Center. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3, 24.1) Petitioner De Niz Mendez entered the United States 26 without inspection around early 2016. (ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 1-1 at 20.) Petitioner Rodriguez 27 Mariscal entered the United States around December 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 1-1 at 45.) 1 Both Petitioners entered the United States without inspection, were not apprehended at or near 2 the border, and have resided continuously in the interior of the United States since their 3 respective entries. (ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 1-1 at 21, 45.) 4 On March 7, 2026, Petitioner De Niz Mendez was arrested by local law enforcement in 5 Utah, subsequently released by the City of West Jordan Justice Court, and then detained by ICE. 6 ICE identified Petitioner Rodriguez Mariscal for detention due to a state charge of driving under 7 the influence, and through counsel made arrangements to report to the West Valley City, Utah 8 ICE office where he was taken into custody on February 3, 2026. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 9 On March 27, 2026, Petitioners filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging their 10 immigration detention on statutory and due process grounds. (ECF No. 1.) On April 21, 2026, 11 Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 7.) On May 5, 2026, Petitioners filed an 12 opposition. (ECF No. 10.) To date, no reply in support of the motion to dismiss has been filed, 13 and the time for doing so has passed. 14 II. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Respondents argue that Petitioner are “‘applicant[s] for admission’ who are subject to 17 mandatory detention by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” (ECF No. 7 at 1.) “District courts 18 around the country have rejected the government’s position that section 1225(b)(2) permits it to 19 pursue mandatory detention against noncitizens who have not been lawfully admitted but have 20 been present in the country for years.” Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 936 21 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citing Salcedo Aceros, 2025 WL 2637503, at *8 (collecting cases)). “Here in 22 the Eastern District of California, recent decisions have largely rejected the government’s 23 interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2) as applicable to all ‘applicants for admission.’” Valencia v. 24 Chestnut, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1067 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting cases). 25 “Respondents submit there are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that 26 materially distinguish it from the cases” where this Court has granted relief. (ECF No. 7 at 1.) 27 Accordingly, the Court recommends finding that Petitioners are not subject to mandatory 1 00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026), which found that “a non- 2 citizen who has resided in this country for an extended period likely falls within the discretionary 3 detention authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than the mandatory detention authority under 8 4 U.S.C. § 1225.” Id. at *2 (citing E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, No. 1:25-CV-01906-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 5 3707140, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025)). 6 Alternatively, Respondents argue that the Court should hold the matter in abeyance 7 pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842. (ECF No. 8 2 at 2.) The Court recommends declining to hold the petition in abeyance given the uncertain 9 timeline regarding any Ninth Circuit decision in Rodriguez Vazquez. 10 III. 11 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 13 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED. 14 2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be DENIED. 15 3. Petitioners be released unless Respondents provide Petitioners with individualized bond 16 hearings before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days. 17 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 18 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 19 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 20 FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 21 written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 22 exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 23 Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days 24 after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate 25 Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 26 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 27 /// 1 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 2 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 5 | Dated: _ May 15, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28