Reinier Roque Soto v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REINIER ROQUE SOTO, No. 1:26-cv-00893-DAD-CSK 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 14 WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX RESTRAINING ORDER DETENTION FACILITY, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 On March 26, 2026, this court denied petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order, 19 finding that he was detained on December 3, 2025 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) but that his 20 detention had not yet become prolonged. (Doc. No. 19.) On May 26, 2026, petitioner filed 21 another pro se motion for temporary restraining order, arguing that he has now been detained for 22 approximately six months without a bond hearing. (Doc. No. 25.) “Courts in this circuit have 23 taken various approaches to determining whether procedural due process requires a bond hearing 24 in a particular case.” Baishymyrov v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:25-cv- 25 01650-DMC (HC), 2026 WL 145644, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026) (noting that courts in the 26 Ninth Circuit have applied alternatively a six-month bright line rule, a Mathews v. Eldridge 27 balancing test, and an eight-factor test in the § 1226(c) context to determine whether detention 28 without a bond hearing had become prolonged). Because petitioner’s detention will exceed six 1 | months if he remains detained on June 4, 2026, the court directs respondent to file an opposition 2 || to petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order no later than June 8, 2026 at 5:00 P.M. 3 | addressing whether procedural due process requires that petitioner be provided with a bond 4 | hearing or any other preliminary relief. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _May 28, 2026 Dake A. 2, oyel 7 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28