Nuruadeen Yarrow Olajide v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00808
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 NURUDEEN YARROW OLAJIDE, Case No. 1:26-cv-00808-KES-SAB-HC

11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. HABEAS CORPUS 13 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner is a noncitizen who arrived in the United States at the San Diego port of entry 21 and sought asylum. Petitioner and his son were paroled into the United States on September 9, 22 2018. (ECF No. 1 at 19.1) The petition alleges that Petitioner obtained a work permit, was 23 detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in June 2024 and released in 24 December 2024, and then “illegally picked up” and “arrested illegally” by ICE in November 25 2025. (Id. at 20–23.) 26 On January 30, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, raising a 27 prolonged detention due process claim. (ECF No. 1.) The Court “construed [the petition] as 1 raising claims challenging Petitioner’s re-detention and the statutory authority of Petitioner’s 2 detention” and ordered Respondents to “address[] whether this case is distinguishable from those 3 cases in which this Court has granted habeas relief.” (ECF No. 9 at 1, 2 (emphasis deleted).) On 4 February 20, 2026, Respondents filed a response. (ECF No. 13.) 5 II. 6 DISCUSSION 7 The Court finds that issuance of findings and recommendation is appropriate despite the 8 time for Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents’ response having not yet expired. 9 Respondents argue that the petition should be denied because Petitioner is “an ‘applicant 10 for admission’ who is subject to mandatory detention by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2),” 11 “Petitioner’s prior release in the discretion of DHS does not have the effect of having converted 12 petitioner’s presence in the United States into an ‘admission,’” and “Petitioner does not possess a 13 right to freedom from immigration detention in any form other than the form provided by 14 Congress.” (ECF No. 13 at 1, 2.) Such arguments have been rejected by this Court in numerous 15 previous decisions. See, e.g., R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01535-KES-EPG (HC), 2026 16 WL 40507 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026); Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-cv-01471-KES-SAB (HC), 17 2025 WL 3254999 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2025). 18 As Respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 19 factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions set 20 forth above, the Court recommends granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the 21 construed due process claim challenging Petitioner’s re-detention for the reasons addressed in 22 those prior orders.2 23 Alternatively, Respondents argue that the Court should hold the matter in abeyance 24 pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842. (ECF No. 25 13 at 2.) In Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 802 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (W.D. Wash. 2025), the 26 district court granted summary judgment “to the Bond Denial Class on their claims that their 27 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful.” Id. at 1336. The Bond Denial Class is 1 defined as: 2 [A]ll noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) 3 are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the noncitizen is 4 scheduled for or requests a bond hearing. 5 Rodriguez Vazquez, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 1336. The district court declared “that Bond Denial Class 6 members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 7 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)” and that “the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice of denying bond to 8 Bond Denial Class members on the basis of § 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and 9 Nationality Act.” Rodriguez Vazquez, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 1336. 10 Although the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez may provide guidance on 11 the application of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226, the Court is skeptical the decision will impact the 12 Court’s conclusion that Petitioner has a protected liberty interest that arises from his prior release 13 from immigration custody. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Respondents’ alternative 14 request hold the matter in abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez 15 v. Bostock be denied. 16 III. 17 RECOMMENDATION 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 19 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED on the construed due process claim 20 challenging Petitioner’s re-detention. 21 2. Respondents be directed to release Petitioner immediately. 22 3. Respondents be enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner unless they 23 demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a 24 neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that 25 his physical custody is legally justified. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 27 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 1 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 2 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 3 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 4 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days 5 | after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate 6 | Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 7 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 8 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 9 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. tf (Sc 12 | Dated: _ February 27, 2026 OF STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28