Sahil Sahil v. Thomas Valdez, Warden of California City Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

SAHIL SAHIL, No. 1:26-cv-01801-KES-SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT v. OF HABEAS CORPUS THOMAS VALDEZ, Warden of California Docs. 1, 2 City Detention Facility, et al., Respondents. Petitioner Sahil Sahil is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 2. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by claim one of the petition. See, e.g., Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3145562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025); R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01535-KES-EPG (HC), 2026 WL 40507 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026); Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01471-KES-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3254999 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2025). The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition and ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the petition. Docs. 8, 10. Respondents state that, “with regards to the claims raised in Claim 1 of the petition, this case is not substantively distinguishable from the cases that the Court cited in its Order to Show Cause.” Doc. 12 at 1. While respondents oppose the petition, they do not raise any new arguments.1 See id. at 1–2; Doc. 9.2 As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3145562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025), R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01535-KES-EPG (HC), 2026 WL 40507 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026), and Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01471-KES-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3254999 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2025), the petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED as to claim one, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders.3 Respondents are ORDERED to release petitioner immediately. Respondents are 1 Respondents allege that petitioner violated certain terms of the “Alternatives to Detention” monitoring program in which he was enrolled. Doc. 9-1 at 5. The alleged violations do not constitute a pertinent distinction between this case and the Court’s prior cases. The record shows that, after the alleged violations, petitioner reported as requested for a scheduled check-in at an ICE office, where ICE arrested him. See Doc. 1 at ¶ 26; Doc. 9-1 at 2. While the alleged violations may be relevant to a neutral decisionmaker’s determination as to whether petitioner is entitled to bond, they do not eliminate petitioner’s due process right to a such determination. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1322 (W.D. Wash. 2025). Courts typically require evidence of urgent concerns or an especially strong government interest to justify a post- deprivation, rather than a pre-deprivation, hearing. See Guillermo M. R. v. Kaiser, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2025); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 53, 59–61 (1993) (“We tolerate some exceptions to the general rule requiring predeprivation notice and hearing, but only in extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event[,]” such as “executive urgency.” (internal quotations omitted)). Respondents do not identify any urgent concerns that would warrant a post-deprivation, rather than pre-deprivation, hearing in this case.

2 Two courts of appeal have addressed whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens who have resided in the United States without having been admitted. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that government was not likely to prevail on the merits that petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (finding petitioners were subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)). Respondents cite to the Buenrostro-Mendez decision. Doc. 9 at 2. The Court finds the analysis in Castañon-Nava and in the dissent in Buenrostro-Mendez to be more persuasive on the statutory interpretation issue. In any event, the Buenrostro-Mendez decision did not address the due process claim at issue in the present case. 3 The Court need not address petitioner’s other claims as petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks based on the Court’s ruling on claim one. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for petitioner. ITIS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ March 12, 2026 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1]