Jesus Emery M. F. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS EMERY M. F.,

12 Petitioner, No. 1:26-cv-01374-TLN-CKD

13 14 v. ORDER WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE 15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, 16 Respondent.

17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jesus Emery M. F.’s1 (“Petitioner”) Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) 20 For the reasons set forth below, the Court granted Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered 21 his immediate release on March 10, 2026. (ECF No. 10.) 22 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Petitioner was admitted 24 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of 25 the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits Petitioner’s full name, using only his first name and last initials, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: 26 Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court 27 Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. 28 1 to the United States on April 5, 2023 as a J1 nonimmigrant with authorization to remain in the 2 United States until May 23, 2024. (ECF No. 8-1 at 2.) Petitioner remained in the United States 3 beyond May 23, 2024. (Id.) 4 On July 17, 2025, Petitioner was charged with unlawful detention and domestic violence 5 in the presence of a child. (ECF No. 8-2 at 3.) On October 16, 2025, Petitioner was arrested for 6 violating a protective order. (Id.) On October 21, 2025, Petitioner was detained and served with 7 a Notice to Appear. (ECF No. 1 at 19; ECF No. 8-2 at 3.) 8 II. STANDARD OF LAW 9 The Constitution guarantees the availability of the writ of habeas corpus “to every 10 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) 11 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in 12 custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure 13 release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas 14 corpus may be granted to a petitioner who demonstrates that she is in custody in violation of the 15 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has 16 served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its 17 protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). Accordingly, a 18 district court’s habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. 19 Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). 20 III. ANALYSIS 21 Respondent contends Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 22 (“§ 1226(a)”). (ECF No. 8 at 2 n. 1.) 23 Section 1226(a) provides: 24 On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, a[ ] [noncitizen] may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the 25 [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States. . . . [T]he Attorney General-- 26 (1) may continue to detain the arrested [noncitizen]; and 27 (2) may release the [noncitizen] on-- 28 1 (A) bond . . . ; or 2 (B) conditional parole[.] 3 § 1226(a) (emphasis added). “Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify 4 discretionary detention under section 1226(a). . . . As such, it follows that absent a warrant a 5 noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, 804 6 F. Supp. 3d 247, 264 (D. Me. 2025) (emphasis in original). 7 The language of § 1226(a)’s warrant requirement is unequivocal and does not afford the 8 Government forgiveness simply by providing a bond hearing after the fact. Yociris P. v. Bondi, 9 No. 26-CV-1080 (ECT/EMB), 2026 WL 327937, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 8, 2026) (“Where the 10 record shows Respondents have not identified a valid statutory basis for detention in the first 11 place, the remedy is not to supply one through further proceedings.” (quoting Order on Petition 12 for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 13 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008))).) Instead, such a 14 violation calls for release. See, e.g., A.E.R.T. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01824-KES-SKO, 2025 15 WL 3645297, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025) (finding immediate release the appropriate remedy 16 where petitioner was arrested without a warrant in violation of § 1226(a)); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, 17 No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025) (same). 18 Here, there is no evidence that a warrant was ever issued for Petitioner’s arrest. As the 19 record does not demonstrate Respondent complied with the express terms of § 1226(a), 20 Petitioner’s arrest and detention under that authority is improper. Petitioner’s detention under 21 that statute therefore violates federal law. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 24 (ECF No. 1.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 25 1. Respondent must file a notice certifying compliance with the release provision of the 26 Court’s March 10, 2026 Order (ECF No. 10) within two (2) court days from the date 27 of this Order. 28 ] 2. Respondent is ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining 2 Petitioner absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections, including 3 seven-days’ notice and a pre-deprivation/custody hearing before a neutral 4 decisionmaker, where (a) Respondent shows material changed circumstances 5 demonstrate a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably 6 foreseeable future, or (b) Respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence 7 that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At any such hearing, 8 Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present. 9 3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and close this case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Date: March 26, 2026 12 7, 13 TROY L. (A 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28