1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MARTIN GALINDO VEGA No. 1:26-cv-03604-DC-SCR (A#240-091-068), 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER and v. 14 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX 15 DETENTION FACILITY, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee who filed this habeas corpus action pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 I. Factual and Procedural History 22 Petitioner is a native of Mexico who is currently detained at the Golden State Annex 23 located within this judicial district. ECF No. 1 at 3, 4. Petitioner came to the United States in 24 approximately 2007 without being inspected by immigration officials. ECF NO. 1 at 6. Since 25 that time, he worked, paid taxes, married a lawful permanent resident, and raised four children in 26 the U.S. Id. at 6. On March 4, 2026, he was transferred from criminal custody in the State of 27 Florida to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. Id. at 6. In his § 2241 28 petition, petitioner challenges his detention without a bond hearing as a violation of his Fifth 1 Amendment right to due process. ECF No. 1 at 17-18. By way of relief, petitioner seeks his 2 immediate release or, in the alternative, a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral 3 decisionmaker where the government has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing 4 evidence that his detention is justified based on flight risk or danger. Id. at 10. 5 Respondent’s answer clarifies petitioner’s prior encounters with immigration officials. 6 ECF No. 7. Petitioner was first taken into immigration custody on July 2, 2024, and placed in 7 removal proceedings based on INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission or 8 parole. ECF No. 7-1 at 2. An immigration judge released petitioner on a $6,000 bond on August 9 9, 2024, with the additional conditions that petitioner have “no further arrests; no harmful contact; 10 no driving without a valid license; [and] no drinking alcohol.” ECF No. 7-2 (Order of the 11 Immigration Judge). Petitioner’s RAP sheet attached to the answer indicates that he was 12 convicted on August 11, 2025 of a second degree felony in the Pasco County Court in Florida for 13 Possession of a Weapon. ECF No. 7-3 at 7. His probation that resulted from this conviction was 14 revoked on March 2, 2026. Id. Immigration officials cancelled his bond on March 4, 2026 and 15 took petitioner back into immigration custody on the same day. ECF No. 7 at 1-2, ECF No. 7-5 16 (Notice – Immigration Bond Cancelled). 17 According to respondent, petitioner is lawfully in immigration detention based on the 18 violation of his bond conditions. ECF No. 7 at 2. His right to due process was not violated 19 because his bond was lawfully cancelled. Id. Despite his prior release on bond pursuant to 8 20 U.S.C. § 1226(a), respondent contends that petitioner is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 21 1225(b)(2) during the pendency of his removal proceedings. ECF No. 7 at 2-3. According to 22 respondent, [a]s an applicant for admission, petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and thus 23 ineligible for a bond hearing.” Id. at 3. Since he entered the United States without inspection, 24 respondent further contends that petitioner has no protected liberty interest and his detention is 25 mandatory. Id. 26 Petitioner did not file a reply and the time to do so has expired. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 II. Legal Standards 2 A. Jurisdiction 3 The federal habeas statute confers subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to any 4 individual’s confinement “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 5 States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). This case presents both statutory and constitutional challenges 6 to petitioner’s ongoing immigration detention. This court has jurisdiction. 7 B. Applicable Immigration Detention Statute 8 Under the INA, § 1226(a) “provides the general process for arresting and detaining 9 [noncitizens] who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.” Rodriguez Diaz v. 10 Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022). Section 1226(a) provides the Government broad 11 discretion whether to release or detain the individual and it provides several layers of review for 12 an initial custody determination. Id. It also confers “an initial bond hearing before a neutral 13 decisionmaker, the opportunity to be represented by counsel and to present evidence, the right to 14 appeal, and the right to seek a new hearing when circumstances materially change.” Id. at 1202. 15 If the immigration judge decides to release a noncitizen on bond, “no change should be made by 16 [the DHS] absent a change of circumstance.” Matter of Sugay, 17 I. & N. Dec. 637, 640 (BIA 17 1981); see also Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Saravia v. 18 Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Saravia for A.H. v. 19 Sessions, 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018)). Conversely, § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention during 20 the duration of removal proceedings for “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” 21 and does not provide for a bond hearing. 22 III. Analysis 23 Petitioner was previously released on a $6,000 bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A) 24 and its implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d). By extension, that would make § 25 1226(a) the basis for petitioner's current detention, as “the initial decision to pursue petitioner's 26 detention under § 1226(a) precludes the government from later ‘switch[ing] tracks’ to subject him 27 to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” Gutierrez v. Chesnut, No. 1:25-cv-1515 DAD AC 28 (HC), 2025 WL 3514495, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025) (collecting cases); see also J.C.E.P. v. 1 Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01559-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 809865 (E.D. Cal. March 24, 2026) 2 (explaining that “[t]he statutory scheme, taken as an entirety, makes it “not possible for 3 [petitioner] to be simultaneously subject to both detention regimes”). Petitioner’s prior release 4 pursuant to § 1226(a) created a protected liberty interest that is “inherent in the Due Process 5 Clause.” Guillermo M.R. v. Kaiser, 791 F.Supp.3d 1021, 1030 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2025) 6 (citations omitted). The undersigned finds that having previously been granted a bond pursuant to 7 § 1226(a), petitioner is not now subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The 8 government’s detention authority remains § 1226(a). 9 Respondents further argue that petitioner’s bond was properly revoked under § 1226(b) as 10 he violated its terms by being re-arrested for a probation violation. DHS may revoke a 11 noncitizen’s bond or parole “at any time” based on a change of circumstances, even if that 12 individual has previously been released. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b); Matter of Sugay, 17 I. & N. Dec.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS MARTIN GALINDO VEGA No. 1:26-cv-03604-DC-SCR (A#240-091-068), 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER and v. 14 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX 15 DETENTION FACILITY, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee who filed this habeas corpus action pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 I. Factual and Procedural History 22 Petitioner is a native of Mexico who is currently detained at the Golden State Annex 23 located within this judicial district. ECF No. 1 at 3, 4. Petitioner came to the United States in 24 approximately 2007 without being inspected by immigration officials. ECF NO. 1 at 6. Since 25 that time, he worked, paid taxes, married a lawful permanent resident, and raised four children in 26 the U.S. Id. at 6. On March 4, 2026, he was transferred from criminal custody in the State of 27 Florida to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. Id. at 6. In his § 2241 28 petition, petitioner challenges his detention without a bond hearing as a violation of his Fifth 1 Amendment right to due process. ECF No. 1 at 17-18. By way of relief, petitioner seeks his 2 immediate release or, in the alternative, a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral 3 decisionmaker where the government has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing 4 evidence that his detention is justified based on flight risk or danger. Id. at 10. 5 Respondent’s answer clarifies petitioner’s prior encounters with immigration officials. 6 ECF No. 7. Petitioner was first taken into immigration custody on July 2, 2024, and placed in 7 removal proceedings based on INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission or 8 parole. ECF No. 7-1 at 2. An immigration judge released petitioner on a $6,000 bond on August 9 9, 2024, with the additional conditions that petitioner have “no further arrests; no harmful contact; 10 no driving without a valid license; [and] no drinking alcohol.” ECF No. 7-2 (Order of the 11 Immigration Judge). Petitioner’s RAP sheet attached to the answer indicates that he was 12 convicted on August 11, 2025 of a second degree felony in the Pasco County Court in Florida for 13 Possession of a Weapon. ECF No. 7-3 at 7. His probation that resulted from this conviction was 14 revoked on March 2, 2026. Id. Immigration officials cancelled his bond on March 4, 2026 and 15 took petitioner back into immigration custody on the same day. ECF No. 7 at 1-2, ECF No. 7-5 16 (Notice – Immigration Bond Cancelled). 17 According to respondent, petitioner is lawfully in immigration detention based on the 18 violation of his bond conditions. ECF No. 7 at 2. His right to due process was not violated 19 because his bond was lawfully cancelled. Id. Despite his prior release on bond pursuant to 8 20 U.S.C. § 1226(a), respondent contends that petitioner is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 21 1225(b)(2) during the pendency of his removal proceedings. ECF No. 7 at 2-3. According to 22 respondent, [a]s an applicant for admission, petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and thus 23 ineligible for a bond hearing.” Id. at 3. Since he entered the United States without inspection, 24 respondent further contends that petitioner has no protected liberty interest and his detention is 25 mandatory. Id. 26 Petitioner did not file a reply and the time to do so has expired. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 II. Legal Standards 2 A. Jurisdiction 3 The federal habeas statute confers subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to any 4 individual’s confinement “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 5 States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). This case presents both statutory and constitutional challenges 6 to petitioner’s ongoing immigration detention. This court has jurisdiction. 7 B. Applicable Immigration Detention Statute 8 Under the INA, § 1226(a) “provides the general process for arresting and detaining 9 [noncitizens] who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.” Rodriguez Diaz v. 10 Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022). Section 1226(a) provides the Government broad 11 discretion whether to release or detain the individual and it provides several layers of review for 12 an initial custody determination. Id. It also confers “an initial bond hearing before a neutral 13 decisionmaker, the opportunity to be represented by counsel and to present evidence, the right to 14 appeal, and the right to seek a new hearing when circumstances materially change.” Id. at 1202. 15 If the immigration judge decides to release a noncitizen on bond, “no change should be made by 16 [the DHS] absent a change of circumstance.” Matter of Sugay, 17 I. & N. Dec. 637, 640 (BIA 17 1981); see also Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Saravia v. 18 Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Saravia for A.H. v. 19 Sessions, 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018)). Conversely, § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention during 20 the duration of removal proceedings for “applicants for admission” who are “seeking admission” 21 and does not provide for a bond hearing. 22 III. Analysis 23 Petitioner was previously released on a $6,000 bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A) 24 and its implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d). By extension, that would make § 25 1226(a) the basis for petitioner's current detention, as “the initial decision to pursue petitioner's 26 detention under § 1226(a) precludes the government from later ‘switch[ing] tracks’ to subject him 27 to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2).” Gutierrez v. Chesnut, No. 1:25-cv-1515 DAD AC 28 (HC), 2025 WL 3514495, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025) (collecting cases); see also J.C.E.P. v. 1 Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01559-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 809865 (E.D. Cal. March 24, 2026) 2 (explaining that “[t]he statutory scheme, taken as an entirety, makes it “not possible for 3 [petitioner] to be simultaneously subject to both detention regimes”). Petitioner’s prior release 4 pursuant to § 1226(a) created a protected liberty interest that is “inherent in the Due Process 5 Clause.” Guillermo M.R. v. Kaiser, 791 F.Supp.3d 1021, 1030 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2025) 6 (citations omitted). The undersigned finds that having previously been granted a bond pursuant to 7 § 1226(a), petitioner is not now subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The 8 government’s detention authority remains § 1226(a). 9 Respondents further argue that petitioner’s bond was properly revoked under § 1226(b) as 10 he violated its terms by being re-arrested for a probation violation. DHS may revoke a 11 noncitizen’s bond or parole “at any time” based on a change of circumstances, even if that 12 individual has previously been released. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b); Matter of Sugay, 17 I. & N. Dec. 13 637, 640 (BIA 1981)). However, numerous courts have held, and the undersigned agrees, that 14 due process protections of the Fifth Amendment apply and require notice and an opportunity to be 15 heard before a noncitizen’s parole or bond is summarily revoked under section 1226(b). See 16 J.C.E.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01559-EFB, 2026 WL 809865 (E.D. Cal. March 24, 2026) 17 (“The requirements of due process, of course, supersede statutory and regulatory authority, and 18 numerous courts have held that the Due Process clause entitles a noncitizen to notice and an 19 opportunity to be heard before his parole or bond is summarily revoked under section 1226(b).”); 20 Guzman v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01015-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617256, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 21 Sept. 9, 2025) (pre-detention hearing required prior to revocation of the petitioner’s release on 22 bond); Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (pre-detention hearing 23 required prior to revocation of the petitioner’s release her own recognizance); Ortega v. Bonnar, 24 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (similar). Having determined that the revocation of 25 petitioner’s immigration bond entitled him to due process protections, the undersigned concludes 26 that he was entitled to notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before his bond was cancelled. 27 Petitioner’s re-detention without notice and an opportunity to be heard violated his right to due 28 process. Therefore, he is entitled to habeas relief. 1 Petitioner’s criminal conviction and revocation of probation are insufficient to displace 2 immediate release as the remedy in this case. Courts have found post-deprivation remedies 3 appropriate only in cases with particularized flight risks that “urgently require arrest” and where a 4 pre-deprivation hearing “would have been impracticable and/or would have motivated 5 [petitioner's] flight.” O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-1652 DAD CSK (HC), 2025 WL 6 3485221, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) (quoting Martinez Hernandez v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv- 7 1035 JLT HBK, 2025 WL 2495767, at *11–12 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025)). Respondent does not 8 identify any such urgency in this case that would make a pre-deprivation hearing impracticable 9 here. Thus, immediate release is the appropriate remedy. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel 11 (ECF No. 3) is denied as unnecessary in light of the recommendation to grant the habeas petition. 12 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED as 14 follows: 15 a. Respondent be ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Luis Martin Galindo 16 Vega (A#240-091-068) from Respondent's custody under the same conditions he was released 17 prior to his current detention. Respondent shall not impose any additional restrictions on him, 18 unless such restrictions are determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody 19 hearing. 20 b. At the time of release, Respondent be required to return all of Petitioner’s documents 21 and possessions. 22 c. Respondent be ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining 23 Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days’ notice and a 24 pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder where: (a) Respondent shows material 25 changed circumstances demonstrate a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the 26 reasonably foreseeable future, or (b) Respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence 27 that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At any such hearing, Petitioner 28 shall be allowed to have counsel present. ] d. Any order adopting these findings and recommendations include language that it does 2 || not address the circumstances in which Respondent may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner 3 || becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that 4 | final order of removal. 5 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to: 6 a. Serve the Golden State Annex Detention Facility with a copy of any release order; and 7 b. Enter judgment in petitioner's favor and close the case. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days after 10 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 11 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. The undersigned finds that a shortened objection period 12 || is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at issue as well as the fact that the parties 13 | have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in written briefs. See United States v. 14 | Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets 15 | the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see also Local Rule 304(b). The parties 16 || are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 17 | the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 | DATED: May 31, 2026 19
21 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28