Johfred Alexander C.C. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10

12 Petitioner, No. 1:26-cv-01623-TLN-SCR 13 v. ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Johfred Alexander C.C.’s1 (“Petitioner”) 19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and 20 Response to Petition. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF no. 11.) For the reasons 21 set forth below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s habeas petition. (ECF No. 1.) 22 /// 23 /// 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 2 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. (ECF No. 9 at 1.) Petitioner was admitted 3 to the United States on August 21, 2020 as a B2 nonimmigrant with authorization to remain in the 4 United States until February 20, 2021. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner remained in the United States beyond 5 February 20, 2021. (Id.) In December 2025, Petitioner was detained. (Id.) On January 6, 2026, 6 Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear. (ECF No. 9-1 at 1.) 8 The Constitution guarantees the availability of the writ of habeas corpus “to every 9 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) 10 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in 11 custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure 12 release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas 13 corpus may be granted to a petitioner who demonstrates that she is in custody in violation of the 14 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has 15 served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its 16 protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). Accordingly, a 17 district court’s habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. 18 Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). 20 Respondent contends Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 21 (“§ 1226(a)”). (ECF No. 8 at 2 n. 1.) 22 Section 1226(a) provides: 23 On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, a[ ] [noncitizen] may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the 24 [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States. . . . [T]he Attorney General-- 25 (1) may continue to detain the arrested [noncitizen]; and 26 (2) may release the [noncitizen] on-- 27 (A) bond . . . ; or 28 1 (B) conditional parole[.] 2 § 1226(a) (emphasis added). “Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify 3 discretionary detention under section 1226(a). . . . As such, it follows that absent a warrant a 4 noncitizen may not be arrested and detained under section 1226(a).” Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, 804 5 F. Supp. 3d 247, 264 (D. Me. 2025) (emphasis in original). 6 The language of § 1226(a)’s warrant requirement is unequivocal and does not afford the 7 Government forgiveness simply by providing a bond hearing after the fact. Yociris P. v. Bondi, 8 No. 26-CV-1080 (ECT/EMB), 2026 WL 327937, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 8, 2026) (“Where the 9 record shows Respondents have not identified a valid statutory basis for detention in the first 10 place, the remedy is not to supply one through further proceedings.” (quoting Order on Petition 11 for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 6, Vedat C. v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-4642 (JWB/DTS) (D. Minn. Dec. 12 19, 2025), ECF No. 9 (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008))).) Instead, such a 13 violation calls for release. See, e.g., A.E.R.T. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01824-KES-SKO, 2025 14 WL 3645297, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025) (finding immediate release the appropriate remedy 15 where petitioner was arrested without a warrant in violation of § 1226(a)); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, 16 No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 3013328, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025) (same). 17 Here, there is no evidence that a warrant was ever issued for Petitioner’s arrest. As the 18 record does not demonstrate Respondent complied with the express terms of § 1226(a), 19 Petitioner’s arrest and detention under that authority is improper. Petitioner’s detention under 20 that statute therefore violates federal law. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 23 (ECF No. 1.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1. Respondents must file a notice certifying compliance with the release provision of the 25 Court’s March 23, 2026 Order (ECF No. 12) within two (2) court days from the date 26 of this Order. 27 /// 28 ] 2. Respondents are 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) Respondents show material changed circumstances 5 demonstrate a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably 6 foreseeable future, or (b) Respondents demonstrate 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. 11 | Date March 30, 2026 12 7, 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28