Luis Reyes Gutierrez v. Warden of the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS REYES GUTIERREZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-02025-KES-SAB-HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS

ANNEX ICE DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents. Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I. Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador who was previously removed from the United States in 1998 and 1999. (ECF No. 13-1 at 3–4.1) Petitioner reentered the United States and on February 22, 2000, Petitioner was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. Petitioner was sentenced to an imprisonment term of twenty-five years to life. (Id. at 6.) On May 5, 2022, while imprisoned at Avenal State Prison, Petitioner was referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for investigation into his immigration status and was placed in immigration detention that same day. (ECF No. 13 at 2; ECF No. 13-1 at 3; ECF No. 1 at 5.) On June 7, 2023, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner by filing a notice to appear charging Petitioner as an immigrant present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). (ECF No. 13-1 at 31, 32.) On December 13, 2023, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). On April 25, 2024, an immigration judge (“IJ”) issued an oral decision denying Petitioner’s applications for relief. On October 10, 2024, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) sustained Petitioner’s appeal and remanded the matter to the IJ for further analysis of Petitioner’s CAT claim. (Id. at 32.) On June 10, 2025, the IJ issued another decision denying Petitioner’s claims. (Id. at 31–63.) Petitioner appealed to the BIA, which dismissed the appeal on March 25, 2026. See Executive Office for Immigration Review, Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (last visited May 12, 2026). Petitioner filed a petition for review and a motion to stay removal in the Ninth Circuit, and a temporary stay of removal is in effect. See Reyes Gutierrez v. Blanche, No. 26-2138 (9th Cir. filed Apr. 8, 2026). Meanwhile, on February 9, 2024, an IJ conducted a bond hearing pursuant to Franco- Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV10-02211, 2013 WL 3674492 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013),2 and found that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) met its burden in establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. (ECF No. 13-1 at 71, 73.) On May 10, 2024, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. (Id. at 71–72.) On December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his prolonged immigration detention without a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. (ECF No. 1.) On March 2, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) On March 17, 2026, Petitioner filed an opposition. (ECF No. 15.) /// ///

2 The district court held that class members detained for more than 180 days are entitled to a custody redetermination hearing, at which the Government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing II. A. Overview of Caselaw Regarding Immigration Detention Statutes An intricate statutory scheme governs the detention of noncitizens during removal proceedings and after a final removal order is issued. “Where an alien falls within this statutory scheme can affect whether his detention is mandatory or discretionary, as well as the kind of review process available to him if he wishes to contest the necessity of his detention.” Prieto- Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). “Four statutes grant the Government authority to detain noncitizens who have been placed in removal proceedings: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) (‘Section 1225(b)’), 1226(a) (‘Subsection A’), 1226(c) (‘Subsection C’), and 1231(a) (‘Section 1231(a)’).” Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2023). “Subsection A is the default detention statute for noncitizens in removal proceedings and applies to noncitizens ‘[e]xcept as provided in [Subsection C].’” Avilez, 69 F.4th at 529 (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). “[D]etention under Subsection A is discretionary” and “provides for release on bond or conditional parole.” Id. “Subsection C provides for the detention of ‘criminal aliens’ and states that ‘[t]he Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who’ is deportable or inadmissible based on a qualifying, enumerated offense.” Id. at 530 (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)). “[D]etention under Subsection C is mandatory,” and “[r]elease under Subsection C is limited to certain witness protection purposes.” Id. “Section 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a final order of removal” and “governs detention during a ninety-day ‘removal period’ after the conclusion of removal proceedings.” Id. at 530–31. “[I]n a series of decisions since 2001, ‘the Supreme Court and [the Ninth Circuit] have grappled in piece-meal fashion with whether the various detention statutes may authorize indefinite or prolonged detention of detainees and, if so, may do so without providing a bond hearing.’” Rodriguez v. Robbins (Rodriguez II), 715 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Rodriguez v. Hayes (Rodriguez I), 591 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010)). In Zadvydas v. Davis, not be effectuated due to lack of a repatriation treaty or because their designated countries refused to accept them, challenged their prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), which governs detention beyond the ninety-day removal period. Applying the canon of constitutional avoidance because a “statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem,” the Supreme Court “read an implicit limitation into” § 1231(a)(6) and held that the statute “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689. Thus, “after a presumptively reasonable six-month period of post-removal period detention, the alien was entitled to release if he successfully demonstrated that there was ‘good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.’” Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1062 (quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). In Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), the Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Demore distinguished Zadvydas by emphasizing detention under § 1226(c) has a “definite termination point” and “in the majority of the cases it lasts for less than the 90 days we considered presumptively valid in Zadvydas.” Id. at 529 (noting that “in 85% of the cases in which aliens are detained pursuant to § 1226(c), removal proceedings are completed in an average time of 47 days and a median of 30 days” and “[i]n the remaining 15% of cases, in which the alien appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge to the Board of Immigration Appeals, appeal takes an average of four months, with a median time that is slightly shorter”).3 However, Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion, which created the

3 “Thirteen years after the decision in Demore, the government admitted that the figures it provided to the Court, and which the Court relied on, contained ‘several significant errors.’” Rodriguez v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv-04187-TSH, 2019 WL 7491555, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (citations omitted). Although the “Supreme Court had inferred from the government’s brief in Demore that in cases in which the alien appeals, the time of detention was ‘about five months,’” the government’s 2016 letter clarified that for years 1999–2001, the “length of detention in cases where the alien appealed [was] 382 days, or a little more than a year.” Id. (citations omitted).

[I]n cases in which an appeal was filed, in most years the average length of detention was more than 300 days, or more than double the five-month estimate the Court relied on in Demore. The data from the Jennings case show that 460 members of the respondent section 1226(c) subclass were detained for an average of 427 days (over fourteen months) with some individual detention periods exceeding four years. Indeed, when the GAO conducted a study, it found that as of 2015, the median length of time it takes the BIA to complete an appeal of a removal order exceeds 450 days. majority rejecting the facial challenge to mandatory detention under § 1226(c), specifically noted that “a lawful permanent resident alien such as respondent could be entitled to an individualized determination as to his risk of flight and dangerousness if the continued detention became unreasonable or unjustified.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring). In the Rodriguez class action, noncitizens “challenge[d] their prolonged detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a) without individualized bond hearings and determinations to justify their continued detention.” Rodriguez v. Robbins (Rodriguez III), 804 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). In Rodriguez II, to avoid constitutional concerns, the Ninth Circuit held that mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and § 1225(b) is implicitly time-limited and expires after six months. Thereafter, the government’s authority to detain shifts to § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing governed by the procedural requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011).4 Rodriguez II, 715 F.3d at 1138–44. In Rodriguez III, the Ninth Circuit held that for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c), “the government must provide periodic bond hearings every six months so that noncitizens may challenge their continued detention as ‘the period of . . . confinement grows.’” Rodriguez III, 804 F.3d at 1089 (quoting Diouf v. Napolitano (Diouf II), 634 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011)). In Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation that §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) included “an implicit 6–month time limit on the length of mandatory detention” and reversed Rodriguez III, holding that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the constitutional avoidance canon to find a statutory right under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to “periodic bond hearings every six months in which the Attorney General must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alien’s continued detention is necessary.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 296, 304, 306. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit “to consider [the] constitutional arguments on their merits.” Id. at 312. The Ninth Circuit, in turn, remanded the

4 In Singh, the Ninth Circuit provided guidance as to the procedural requirements for the bond hearings. Specifically, “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond.” Singh, 638 F.3d at 1208. Due process also requires a contemporaneous case to the district court to consider the constitutional arguments in the first instance, but noted that it had “grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so.” Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 255, 256 (9th Cir. 2018). Following Jennings, the Ninth Circuit upheld the “construction of § 1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing before an IJ after six months of detention for an alien whose release or removal is not imminent” with the government “bear[ing] a clear and convincing burden of proof at such a bond hearing to justify an alien’s continued detention.” Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, 955 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court reversed on other grounds, Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 546 (2022), and “[i]n a companion case decided that same day arising from the Third Circuit, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, [596] U.S. [573], 142 S. Ct. 1827, 213 L.Ed.2d 125 (2022), the Supreme Court separately rejected [the Ninth Circuit’s] statutory interpretation in Aleman Gonzalez,” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1201 (9th Cir. 2022), holding that “there is no plausible construction of the text of § 1231(a)(6) that requires the Government to provide bond hearings before immigration judges after six months of detention, with the Government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a detained noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community,” Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. at 581. Arteaga-Martinez declined to reach the constitutional claims. Id. at 583. “[A]fter the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jennings and Arteaga-Martinez, it remain[ed] undetermined whether the Due Process Clause requires additional bond procedures under any immigration detention statute” until the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez Diaz, which concerned a petitioner detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) who sought a second bond hearing before an IJ at which the government would bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1201, 1193. The Ninth Circuit held that “due process does not require the procedures Rodriguez Diaz would have us impose” because “Section 1226(a) offers substantial procedural protections to detained persons, and Rodriguez B. Procedural Due Process The petition asserts a prolonged detention due process claim. (ECF No. 1 at 6–17.) Here, Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A). Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to take a position on whether due process requires a bond hearing for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the First, Second, and Third Circuits have found that “the Due Process Clause imposes some form of ‘reasonableness’ limitation upon the duration of detention . . . under [section 1226(c)].” Reid v. Donelan, 17 F.4th 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2021) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). Accord Black, 103 F.4th at 138 (“conclud[ing] that a noncitizen’s constitutional right to due process precludes his unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) without a bond hearing”); German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 209–10 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that after Demore and Jennings, petitioners detained pursuant to § 1226(c) can still bring as-applied challenges to their detention and that due process affords them a bond hearing once detention becomes unreasonable). Contra Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928 (8th Cir. 2024). Additionally, “essentially all district courts that have considered the issue agree that prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, ‘will—at some point—violate the right to due process.’” Martinez v. Clark, No. C18-1669-RAJ-MAT, 2019 WL 5968089, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019) (citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 5962685 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2019). Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends finding that unreasonably prolonged mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without an individualized bond hearing violates due process. The Court now turns to whether Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged such that due process requires a bond hearing. Courts in this circuit have taken various approaches to determining whether procedural due process requires a bond hearing in a particular case. See Rodriguez v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv- 04187-TSH, 2019 WL 7491555, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (six-month bright-line rule in § 1226(c) context); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1117 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (six- factor test that considers “(1) the total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order of removal” in § 1225(b) context); Juarez v. Wolf, No. C20-1660-RJB-MLP, 2021 WL 2323436, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2021) (eight- factor test that considers “whether the detention will exceed the time the petitioner spent in prison for the crime that made him [or her] removable” and “the nature of the crimes the petitioner committed” in addition to the six factors set forth above in § 1226(c) context (alteration in original)), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 2322823 (W.D. Wash. June 7, 2021); Henriquez v. Garland, No. 5:22-cv-00869-EJD, 2022 WL 2132919, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) (applying Mathews v. Eldridge test to petitioner’s due process claim requesting initial bond hearing in § 1226(c) context). This Court previously found that “[t]o determine whether § 1226(c) detention has become unreasonable, the Court will look to the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). However, in Lopez, this Court specifically noted that it was “by no means providing any insight as to whether a failure to provide a ‘second bond hearing’ violates due process. That analysis would be much different than the present analysis of whether due process is implicated in providing an initial bond hearing.” Lopez, 631 F. Supp. 3d at 879 n.6. Here, as Petitioner has already received a bond hearing and is seeking a second bond hearing, the Court finds that the three-part test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is applicable. See Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1193, 1206 (“assum[ing] without deciding,” in context of petitioner detained under to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) seeking a second bond hearing, that Mathews test applied, noting the Ninth Circuit has “regularly applied Mathews to due process challenges to removal proceedings,” and finding “Mathews remains a flexible test that can and must account for the heightened governmental interest in the immigration detention context”); id. at 1219 (Wardlaw, J., dissenting) (“agree[ing] that the test developed in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), is the appropriate legal framework Cnty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208, 225 (3d Cir. 2018) (applying Mathews test in the context of § 1231(a)), abrogated by Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573; Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1118 (noting that “the Mathews factors may be well-suited to determining whether due process requires a second bond hearing”).

[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors. First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334. 1. Private Interest “As a general matter, detention is prolonged when it has lasted six months and is expected to continue more than minimally beyond six months.” Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1092 n.13 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Petitioner has been detained for four years. It “is beyond dispute” that Petitioner’s interest here is “fundamental.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 993 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)). “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. See Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1207 (“We have also held, more generally, that an individual’s private interest in ‘freedom from prolonged detention’ is ‘unquestionably substantial.’” (quoting Singh, 638 F.3d at 1208)). Petitioner “has a legitimate and reasonably strong private liberty interest under Mathews.” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1207. Accordingly, the Court finds the first Mathews factor weighs in favor of Petitioner. 2. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation As set forth above, on February 9, 2024, an IJ conducted a bond hearing pursuant to and found that DHS met its burden in establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on May 10, 2024. (ECF No. 13-1 at 71–73.) Like the petitioner in Rodriguez Diaz, the determination to detain Petitioner “was neutral decisionmaker. These procedures ensured that the risk of erroneous deprivation would be ‘relatively small.’” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1210 (quoting Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2017)). Further, Petitioner does not establish “the probable value, if any” of an additional bond hearing. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334. For example, Petitioner does not argue that there are changed circumstances or additional evidence not previously available that would likely result in a different outcome. Accordingly, the second Mathews factor weighs against Petitioner. 3. Government Interest “[T]he government clearly has a strong interest in preventing aliens from ‘remain[ing] in the United States in violation of our law’” and “has an obvious interest in ‘protecting the public from dangerous criminal aliens.’” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1208 (quoting Demore, 538 U.S. at 518, 515). “These are interests of the highest order that only increase with the passage of time.” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1208. “The longer detention lasts and the longer the challenges to an IJ’s order of removal take, the more resources the government devotes to securing an alien’s ultimate removal. The risk of a detainee absconding also inevitably escalates as the time for removal becomes more imminent.” Id. “For all these reasons,” the Ninth Circuit has held that the government’s interests in immigration detention cases “are significant.” Id. In accordance with Rodriguez Diaz, the Court finds the third Mathews factor weighs in favor of Respondent.5 4. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that one of the Mathews factors weighs in favor of Petitioner and two weigh against Petitioner. On balance, the Mathews test supports a finding that Petitioner is not entitled to a second bond hearing. Accordingly, the Court recommends finding that procedural due process does not compel a second bond hearing at this time. Should circumstances change, however, due process may dictate a different outcome.

5 The Court notes that it is important not to overstate the strength of Respondent’s showing under this factor. “The government interest in immigration enforcement in general is surely substantial. But the question here is not the government’s interest in immigration enforcement [in general] but its interest in” detaining Petitioner without providing him with another bond hearing. Zerezghi v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 955 F.3d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 2020). Lopez Reyes v. Bonnar, 362 F. Supp. 3d 762, 777 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[T]he governmental issue at stake [here] is the ability to detain Petitioner without providing him with another bond hearing, not whether the Hil. Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le Dated: _May 12, 2026_ ef STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge