The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 MIGUEL ANGEL ROSALES, A-221-489- No. 2:26-cv-00666-DAD-EFB
396
10
Petitioner,
11 ORDER (ECF No. 9) AND FINDINGS AND
v. RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF No. 1)
12
WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA
13 STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et
al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
Petitioner is a noncitizen challenging his present detention in an immigration detention
17
facility, seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Pending before the
18
court is petitioner’s motion to reduce bond or for release on recognizance or conditional parole,
19
ECF No. 9, which respondents oppose. ECF No. 11. For the reasons stated herein, the court
20
denies the motion and recommends that the writ be granted.
21
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
22
Petitioner initiated this action on March 2, 2026, seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28
23
U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. In his petition, he alleges that he is a citizen of Guatemala who has
24
been detained by respondents since January 18, 2026, pending his immigration removal
25
proceedings. Id. at 2-4. The petition raises two claims for relief: that petitioner’s detention
26
without a bond hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (claim one) and his
27
procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment (claim two). Id. at 8-9.
28
1 On March 2, 2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order, in which he
2 requested that the court order petitioner’s immediate release or, alternatively, order respondents
3 provide him a bond hearing, pursuant to both of his claims for relief. ECF No. 2. Respondents
4 filed an Answer to the petition and opposed the motion, ECF No. 6, and, on March 4, 2026, the
5 District Court converted the motion into a request for a preliminary injunction and granted it.
6 ECF No. 7. The Court ordered respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing within ten days
7 of the date of the order and to subsequently file a status report indicating compliance. Id. On
8 March 15, 2026, respondents filed a status report representing that an Immigration Judge
9 conducted a bond hearing on March 12, 2026 and granted petitioner’s request for bond, setting a
10 bond amount of $25,000 and ordering that petitioner be subject to alternatives to detention,
11 including GPS monitoring. ECF No. 8.
12 On March 23, 2026, petitioner filed the instant motion to reduce bond, ECF No. 9, and, on
13 March 31, 2026, respondents filed an opposition brief. ECF No. 11.
14 DISCUSSION
15 A. Motion to Reduce Bond
16 In his motion, petitioner acknowledges that an Immigration Judge conducted a custody
17 redetermination hearing on March 12, 2026, at which he granted petitioner release under bond of
18 $25,000. ECF No. 9 at 1-2. He argues that this determination violates his rights to due process
19 under the Fifth Amendment because the bond amount fails to account for his indigence. Id. at 3-
20 4. Respondents argue the motion should be denied because petitioner has not exhausted his
21 administrative remedies nor demonstrated legal error entitling him to relief. ECF No. 11.
22 The court agrees with respondents’ argument that petitioner’s failure to seek review of the
23 Immigration Judge’s bond decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) forecloses the
24 relief petitioner seeks, under principles of prudential exhaustion. This conclusion is commanded
25 by the Court of Appeals’ holding in Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2011), which
26 is legally indistinguishable from the instant case. There, the petitioner was a noncitizen held in
27 immigration detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and filed a petition for writ of habeas in the
28 federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his prolonged detention without a bond
1 hearing violated his due process rights. Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1159. The district court entered an
2 order directing respondent to hold a bond hearing consistent with the requirements set forth in
3 Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.2008), and
4 refrained from entering judgment on the habeas corpus petition until respondents had reported to
5 the court that such a hearing had been held. Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1159. Respondents complied
6 with the order and an Immigration Judge held a bond hearing, at which he denied bond upon
7 finding petitioner was a danger to the community. Id. The petitioner did not appeal this
8 determination to the BIA, but instead filed in the district court in his pending habeas corpus
9 proceeding a motion for the court to review and reverse the Immigration Judge’s bond order,
10 arguing that the bond hearing did not conform to the court’s prior order nor satisfy due process.
11 Id.
12 The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner’s request should have been denied, and his
13 underlying claim dismissed without prejudice, due to his failure to exhaust administrative
14 remedies by seeking review of the bond decision to the BIA. Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160. The
15 court explained that the statutory and regulatory scheme of § 1226(a)
16
entitle[s] [detainees] to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. If they are
17 dissatisfied with the IJ’s bond determination, they may file an administrative
appeal so that “the necessity of detention can be reviewed by . . . the BIA.” If they
18 remain dissatisfied, they may file a petition for habeas corpus in the district court.
19 Id. (citations omitted). As such, it was “improper” for petitioner to employ the “short cut” of
20 seeking review of the IJ’s bond decision in the district court before seeking review in the BIA.
21 Id. Instead, petitioner “should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA
22 before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision” and “[o]nce the BIA rendered
23 its decision, [petitioner] could have properly pursued habeas relief in the district court and the
24 district court's decision would have been subject to review in this court.” Id. Because petitioner
25 had not shown that his request should be excused from the prudential exhaustion requirement,
26 nor that the proceeding should be stayed to permit him to exhaust the new claim, the Court held
27 that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust his
28 claim challenging the adequacy of the bond determination. Id. at 1160-61.
1 The instant case is indistinguishable, such that petitioner’s motion must be denied. As in
2 Leonardo, petitioner here has received the bond hearing ordered by the District Court and, as in
3 Leonardo, petitioner’s challenge to the constitutional adequacy of that hearing was not presented
4 to the BIA before being raised in this court. See Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160; ECF Nos. 8, 9.
5 Leonardo makes clear that, in this particular posture, the detainee must exhaust his challenge to
6 the IJ’s bond decision in the BIA prior to seeking relief in the federal courts. Id. at 1160-61.
7 Although the Court of Appeals recognized that there may be circumstances where exhaustion
8 could be excused, see id., here, petitioner has made no argument nor showing that grounds exist
9 for excusing the prudential exhaustion requirement in his case. See ECF No. 9; see generally
10 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). Petitioner also has not requested that
11 his case be stayed so that he can exhaust the argument that forms the basis of this motion. See
12 Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160; ECF No. 9. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion must be denied. See
13 Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1161.
14 B. Merits of the Petition
15 In his petition, petitioner alleges that his detention without a bond hearing violated his
16 rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act and his rights to procedural due process under
17 the Fifth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 8-9. The District Court granted petitioner’s motion for
18 preliminary injunction on March 4, 2026, finding that petitioner had shown a likelihood of relief
19 on his claim of due process violation, for the reasons set forth in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-
20 00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), and Bautista v. Santacruz, No.
21 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). ECF No. 7. In their
22 Answer to the petition, respondents raise no additional legal grounds for opposing relief on the
23 merits that had not been raised in their opposition to petitioner’s motion for temporary
24 restraining order and preliminary injunction. ECF No. 6. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s
25 March 4, 2026 Order, petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his
26 detention without a bond hearing violates his due process rights, by virtue of his membership in
27 the Bautista certified class. See ECF No. 7; Rangel, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL
28 73996, at *2; Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485,
1 |} at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the petition be
2 || granted. Because, however, the relief that petitioner requested in his petition—an order that
3 || respondents conduct a custody redetermination hearing, see ECF No. 1 at 9—has already
4 || occurred pursuant to the District Court’s March 4, 2026 Order, see ECF Nos. 7, 8, there appears
5 || no grounds to order any further injunctive relief as part of the final judgment.
6 CONCLUSION AND ORDER
7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reduce bond (ECF
8 | No. 9)is DENIED.
9 It is RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be
10 | GRANTED and judgment be entered in favor of petitioner.
11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days after
13 || being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with
14 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
15 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the
16 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158
17 || F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18 || Dated: April 27, 2026 i Vp ZZ, |
” EDMUND F.
20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28