The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 TANIA VANESSA ORTIZ-CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-01182-JLT-SAB-HC
11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART
12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS
13 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., TO PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH BOND
HEARING
14 Respondents.
15
16 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
18 I.
19 BACKGROUND
20 Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States in approximately 2007
21 and has lived here continuously for eighteen years. She is the primary caregiver for her two U.S.
22 citizen children. (ECF No. 1 at 2.1) On June 21, 2025, Petitioner was outside her mother’s
23 residence when she was arrested. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner was denied bond in November 2025. (Id. at
24 5.) On March 5, 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) issued an order of removal. (ECF No. 9 at
25 19–22.) Petitioner has filed an appeal of the IJ’s decision. (ECF No. 10 at 3.)
26 On February 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion
27 for temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The assigned district judge denied the
1 motion for TRO as untimely. (ECF No. 8.) Respondents have filed a response, and Petitioner has
2 filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.)
3 II.
4 DISCUSSION
5 A. Arrest
6 The petition alleges that on June 21, 2025, Petitioner was outside her mother’s residence
7 moving her vehicle when a truck approached and three men exited. The men wore plain clothes,
8 displayed no badges, identified no agency, and presented no warrant. Despite Petitioner not
9 resisting, the men threw Petitioner to the ground, dragged her by her legs, and forced her into
10 their vehicle while Petitioner’s twelve-year-old son watched. The petition alleges that Petitioner
11 repeatedly requested an arrest warrant but the agents refused to respond and ordered her to
12 remain silent. Petitioner did not know who had taken her. (ECF No. 1 at 3–4.)
13 Respondents have submitted a copy of a Form I-213,2 which states that on “September
14 25, 2007, the Specialized Magistrate’s Court of San Salvador, in El Salvador, issued an arrest
15 warrant under case number 1883, for [Petitioner] for the offense of extortion.”3 (ECF No. 9 at 8.)
16 On May 28, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Enforcement and
17 Removal Operations (“ERO”) Los Angeles Foreign Fugitive Unit (“FFU”) “received a lead
18 referral from the ICE Attache in San Salvador, El Salvador, identifying [Petitioner] as the subject
19 of a foreign arrest warrant issued by the Government of El Salvador, [and] request[ing] the arrest
20 of [Petitioner] for the offense of extortion.” (Id.)
21 On July 21, 2025, the Los Angeles Foreign Fugitive Unit (FFU) officers, working
in conjunction with the United States Marshals Service, went to the area of
22 [REDACTED] in search of [Petitioner], a citizen and national of El Salvador and
a foreign fugitive wanted by the Government of El Salvador. The information
23 concerning the location of [Petitioner] was based on commercially available
database information and surveillance. Upon arriving at what was believed to be
24 the area of [Petitioner]’s residence, the decision was made to canvass the area
around the location to see if any vehicles registered to [Petitioner] could be
25 located. One vehicle registered to [Petitioner] was located so the decision was
26
2 “A Form I-213 is ‘a recorded recollection of a[n INS agent’s] conversation with the alien’ which ‘border agents
routinely complete after interviewing aliens.’” Smith v. Garland, 103 F.4th 663, 665 (9th Cir. 2024) (alteration in
27 original) (quoting Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1995)).
3 In the reply, Petitioner provides a certificate from the Directorate General of Penal Centers that no criminal record
1 made to wait and see if [Petitioner] would exit of her own volition. At
approximately 0645 a single female was seen exiting the target address and walk
2 towards a vehicle bearing the California license plate [REDACTED] parked on
the street in front of the neighboring house. Based on available photos and
3 physical description the female was believed to be the target [Petitioner].
4 Officers approached [Petitioner] prior to her entering her vehicle. The officers,
wearing clearly marked agency identifiers, identified themselves as ICE officers
5 and inquired as to the identity of the individual who then identified herself as
[Petitioner]. Based on available photographs it was established the individual was
6 in fact the target. Officers also established that [Petitioner] is a citizen and
national of El Salvador, without legal status in the United States. Following her
7 arrest [Petitioner] was transported to the Los Angeles Field Office for processing.
8 (ECF No. 9 at 7–8.)
9 1. Fourth Amendment
10 In Claim 1 of the petition, Petitioner asserts a Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim.
11 (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Petitioner argues that “[w]arrantless arrests require probable cause and
12 administrative authorization” and “[r]acialized or warrantless civil seizures violate the Fourth
13 Amendment.” (Id. at 4.) Respondents contend that as “Petitioner was arrested pursuant to an
14 administrative warrant,” “Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment arguments are not supported by the
15 evidence.” (ECF No. 9 at 4.)
16 “[T]he Supreme Court [has] opined that, consistent with the Fourth Amendment,
17 immigration authorities may arrest individuals for civil immigration removal purposes pursuant
18 to an administrative arrest warrant issued by an executive official, rather than by a judge.”
19 Gonzalez v. United States Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 975 F.3d 788, 825 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing
20 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 230–34 (1960)). Here, Respondents have submitted a copy
21 of the administrative warrant. (ECF No. 9 at 16.) As Petitioner was arrested pursuant to
22 administrative warrant, the Court recommends denying Claim 1 of the petition.
23 2. Egregious Government Conduct
24 In Claim 2 of the petition, Petitioner asserts egregious government conduct that “shocks
25 the conscience and taints detention,” citing to Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir.
26 1994). (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Petitioner specifically notes the violent seizure, the agents’ lack of
27 identification, the lack of a warrant, and the trauma experienced by her son watching her seizure.
(ECF No. 1 at 4.) Respondents argue that Petitioner’s reliance on Gonzalez-Rivera “is
1 misplaced” because that case concerned “a petition for review of a Board of Immigration
2 decision vacating an immigration judge’s decision about the lawfulness (constitutionality) of a
3 stop of an alien by Border Patrol officers based on an alien’s Hispanic appearance. This has
4 nothing to do with the facts of the instant case.” (ECF No. 9 at 3–4.)
5 The Court agrees with Respondent that Gonzalez-Rivera is inapposite. Gonzalez-Rivera
6 concerned a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a vehicle stop based solely on
7 Gonzalez’s Hispanic appearance, which Gonzalez argued constituted an egregious violation of
8 his Fourth Amendment rights. Gonzalez-Rivera, 22 F.3d at 1442–43. Here, Petitioner is not
9 moving to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation.
10 Accordingly, the Court recommends denying Claim 2 of the petition.
11 B. Procedural Due Process
12 In Claim 3 of the petition, Petitioner asserts that “[p]rolonged detention without adequate
13 safeguards violates due process.” (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Respondents argue that “[a]s an applicant for
14 admission, petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and thus ineligible for a bond hearing.”
15 (ECF No. 9 at 3.)
16 1. Overview of Caselaw Regarding Immigration Detention Statutes
17 An intricate statutory scheme governs the detention of noncitizens during removal
18 proceedings and after a final removal order is issued. “Where an alien falls within this statutory
19 scheme can affect whether his detention is mandatory or discretionary, as well as the kind of
20 review process available to him if he wishes to contest the necessity of his detention.” Prieto-
21 Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008).
22 “Four statutes grant the Government authority to detain noncitizens who have been
23 placed in removal proceedings: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) (‘Section 1225(b)’), 1226(a) (‘Subsection
24 A’), 1226(c) (‘Subsection C’), and 1231(a) (‘Section 1231(a)’).” Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th
25 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2023). “Subsection A is the default detention statute for noncitizens in
26 removal proceedings and applies to noncitizens ‘[e]xcept as provided in [Subsection C].’”
27 Avilez, 69 F.4th at 529 (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). “[D]etention under
1 “Subsection C provides for the detention of ‘criminal aliens’ and states that ‘[t]he Attorney
2 General shall take into custody any alien who’ is deportable or inadmissible based on a
3 qualifying, enumerated offense.” Id. at 530 (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)).
4 “[D]etention under Subsection C is mandatory,” and “[r]elease under Subsection C is limited to
5 certain witness protection purposes.” Id. “Section 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a
6 final order of removal” and “governs detention during a ninety-day ‘removal period’ after the
7 conclusion of removal proceedings.” Id. at 530–31.
8 “[I]n a series of decisions since 2001, ‘the Supreme Court and [the Ninth Circuit] have
9 grappled in piece-meal fashion with whether the various detention statutes may authorize
10 indefinite or prolonged detention of detainees and, if so, may do so without providing a bond
11 hearing.’” Rodriguez v. Robbins (Rodriguez II), 715 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting
12 Rodriguez v. Hayes (Rodriguez I), 591 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010)). In Zadvydas v. Davis,
13 533 U.S. 678 (2001), two noncitizens, who had been ordered removed but whose removal could
14 not be effectuated due to lack of a repatriation treaty or because their designated countries
15 refused to accept them, challenged their prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), which
16 governs detention beyond the ninety-day removal period. Applying the canon of constitutional
17 avoidance because a “statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious
18 constitutional problem,” the Supreme Court “read an implicit limitation into” § 1231(a)(6) and
19 held that the statute “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably
20 necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at
21 689. Thus, “after a presumptively reasonable six-month period of post-removal period detention,
22 the alien was entitled to release if he successfully demonstrated that there was ‘good reason to
23 believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.’”
24 Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1062 (quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701).
25 In Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), the Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to
26 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Demore distinguished Zadvydas by emphasizing
27 detention under § 1226(c) has a “definite termination point” and “in the majority of the cases it
1 that “in 85% of the cases in which aliens are detained pursuant to § 1226(c), removal
2 proceedings are completed in an average time of 47 days and a median of 30 days” and “[i]n the
3 remaining 15% of cases, in which the alien appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge to the
4 Board of Immigration Appeals, appeal takes an average of four months, with a median time that
5 is slightly shorter”).4 However, Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion, which created the
6 majority rejecting the facial challenge to mandatory detention under § 1226(c), specifically noted
7 that “a lawful permanent resident alien such as respondent could be entitled to an individualized
8 determination as to his risk of flight and dangerousness if the continued detention became
9 unreasonable or unjustified.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
10 In the Rodriguez class action, noncitizens “challenge[d] their prolonged detention
11 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a) without individualized bond
12 hearings and determinations to justify their continued detention.” Rodriguez v. Robbins
13 (Rodriguez III), 804 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). In Rodriguez II, to avoid constitutional
14 concerns, the Ninth Circuit held that mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and § 1225(b) is
15 implicitly time-limited and expires after six months. Thereafter, the government’s authority to
16 detain shifts to § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing governed by the procedural
17 requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011).5 Rodriguez II, 715 F.3d
18 at 1138–44. In Rodriguez III, the Ninth Circuit held that for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C.
19 §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c), “the government must provide periodic bond hearings every
20
4 “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,
21 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
22 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).
23 [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
24 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
25 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.
26
Rodriguez, 2019 WL 7491555, at *5 (citations omitted).
27 5 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
1 six months so that noncitizens may challenge their continued detention as ‘the period of . . .
2 confinement grows.’” Rodriguez III, 804 F.3d at 1089 (quoting Diouf v. Napolitano (Diouf II),
3 634 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011)).
4 In Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth
5 Circuit’s interpretation that §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) included “an implicit 6–month time limit on
6 the length of mandatory detention” and reversed Rodriguez III, holding that the Ninth Circuit
7 misapplied the constitutional avoidance canon to find a statutory right under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
8 to “periodic bond hearings every six months in which the Attorney General must prove by clear
9 and convincing evidence that the alien’s continued detention is necessary.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at
10 296, 304, 306. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit “to consider [the]
11 constitutional arguments on their merits.” Id. at 312. The Ninth Circuit, in turn, remanded the
12 case to the district court to consider the constitutional arguments in the first instance, but noted
13 that it had “grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without
14 any process is constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect
15 against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so.” Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d
16 252, 255, 256 (9th Cir. 2018).
17 Following Jennings, the Ninth Circuit upheld the “construction of § 1231(a)(6) to require
18 a bond hearing before an IJ after six months of detention for an alien whose release or removal is
19 not imminent” with the government “bear[ing] a clear and convincing burden of proof at such a
20 bond hearing to justify an alien’s continued detention.” Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, 955 F.3d 762,
21 766 (9th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court reversed on other grounds, Garland v. Aleman
22 Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 546 (2022), and “[i]n a companion case decided that same day arising
23 from the Third Circuit, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, [596] U.S. [573], 142 S. Ct. 1827, 213
24 L.Ed.2d 125 (2022), the Supreme Court separately rejected [the Ninth Circuit’s] statutory
25 interpretation in Aleman Gonzalez,” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1201 (9th Cir.
26 2022), holding that “there is no plausible construction of the text of § 1231(a)(6) that requires the
27 Government to provide bond hearings before immigration judges after six months of detention,
1 detained noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community,” Arteaga-Martinez, 596
2 U.S. at 581. Arteaga-Martinez declined to reach the constitutional claims. Id. at 583.
3 “[A]fter the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jennings and Arteaga-Martinez, it remain[ed]
4 undetermined whether the Due Process Clause requires additional bond procedures under any
5 immigration detention statute” until the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez Diaz, which
6 concerned a petitioner detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) who sought a second bond
7 hearing before an IJ at which the government would bear the burden of proof by clear and
8 convincing evidence. Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1201, 1193. The Ninth Circuit held that “due
9 process does not require the procedures Rodriguez Diaz would have us impose” because
10 “Section 1226(a) offers substantial procedural protections to detained persons, and Rodriguez
11 Diaz has not shown that these procedures violate due process, either facially or as applied.” Id.
12 2. Analysis
13 Here, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8
14 U.S.C. § 1225(b).6 (ECF No. 9 at 2–3.) The Ninth Circuit has yet to take a position on whether
15 due process requires a bond hearing for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
16 However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “district courts throughout this circuit have
17 ordered immigration courts to conduct bond hearings for noncitizens held for prolonged periods
18 under § 1226(c)” based on due process and noted that “[a]ccording to one such court order, the
19 ‘prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, will—at
20 some point—violate the right to due process.’” Martinez v. Clark, 36 F.4th 1219, 1223 (9th Cir.
21
6 It appears that Petitioner is being subjected to Respondents’ “policy requir[ing] ICE employees to consider anyone
22 arrested in the United States and charged with being inadmissible as an ‘applicant for admission’ under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2)(A)” and “subject to mandatory detention.” Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-
23 BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 3713987, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), judgment entered sub nom.
Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).
24 “District courts around the country have rejected the government’s position that section 1225(b)(2) permits it to
pursue mandatory detention against noncitizens who have not been lawfully admitted but have been present in the
25 country for years.” Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 936 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citing Salcedo Aceros v.
Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025) (collecting cases)).
“Here in the Eastern District of California, recent decisions have largely rejected the government’s interpretation of
26
Section 1225(b)(2) as applicable to all ‘applicants for admission.’” Valencia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01550 WBS
JDP, 2025 WL 3205133, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025) (collecting cases). However, the petition does not
27 challenge the statutory basis for Petitioner’s detention, and the Court’s analysis and conclusion on Claim 3 “is based
on the length of [Petitioner]’s detention without a hearing, not the statutory basis for [her] detention.” Doe v.
1 2022) (citation omitted), vacated on other grounds, 144 S. Ct. 1339 (2024). Further, the First,
2 Second, and Third Circuits have found that “the Due Process Clause imposes some form of
3 ‘reasonableness’ limitation upon the duration of detention . . . under [section 1226(c)].” Reid v.
4 Donelan, 17 F.4th 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2021) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). Accord Black v.
5 Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2024) (“conclud[ing] that a noncitizen’s constitutional right
6 to due process precludes his unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) without a
7 bond hearing”); German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 209–10 (3d
8 Cir. 2020) (holding that after Demore and Jennings, petitioners detained pursuant to § 1226(c)
9 can still bring as-applied challenges to their detention and that due process affords them a bond
10 hearing once detention becomes unreasonable). Contra Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928 (8th
11 Cir. 2024).
12 Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends finding that unreasonably prolonged
13 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates
14 due process. The Court now turns to whether Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably
15 prolonged such that due process requires a bond hearing.
16 Courts in this circuit have taken various approaches to determining whether procedural
17 due process requires a bond hearing in a particular case. See Rodriguez v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv-
18 04187-TSH, 2019 WL 7491555, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (six-month bright-line rule in
19 § 1226(c) context); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1117 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (six-
20 factor test that considers “(1) the total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future
21 detention; (3) the conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the
22 detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood
23 that the removal proceedings will result in a final order of removal” in § 1225(b) context); Juarez
24 v. Wolf, No. C20-1660-RJB-MLP, 2021 WL 2323436, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2021) (eight-
25 factor test that considers “whether the detention will exceed the time the petitioner spent in
26 prison for the crime that made him [or her] removable” and “the nature of the crimes the
27 petitioner committed” in addition to the six factors set forth above in § 1226(c) context
1 June 7, 2021); Henriquez v. Garland, No. 5:22-cv-00869-EJD, 2022 WL 2132919, at *5–6 (N.D.
2 Cal. June 14, 2022) (applying Mathews v. Eldridge test to petitioner’s due process claim
3 requesting initial bond hearing in § 1226(c) context).
4 This Court previously found that “[t]o determine whether § 1226(c) detention has become
5 unreasonable, the Court will look to the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of
6 future detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the
7 government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Here, there is no
8 information before this Court regarding the likely duration of future detention and the delays in
9 the removal proceedings caused by Petitioner and the government. Accordingly, the Court will
10 apply the three-part test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Rodriguez
11 Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1193, 1206 (“assum[ing] without deciding,” in context of petitioner detained
12 under to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) seeking a second bond hearing, that Mathews test applied, noting the
13 Ninth Circuit has “regularly applied Mathews to due process challenges to removal
14 proceedings,” and finding “Mathews remains a flexible test that can and must account for the
15 heightened governmental interest in the immigration detention context”); id. at 1219 (Wardlaw,
16 J., dissenting) (“agree[ing] that the test developed in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct.
17 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), is the appropriate legal framework to determine whether there was a
18 due process violation”).
19 [I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires
consideration of three distinct factors. First, the private interest that will be
20 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
21 or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest,
including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the
22 additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.
23 Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334.
24 a. Private Interest
25 It “is beyond dispute” that Petitioner’s interest here is “fundamental.” Hernandez v.
26 Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 993 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)).
27 “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical
1 at 690. See Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1207 (“We have also held, more generally, that an
2 individual’s private interest in ‘freedom from prolonged detention’ is ‘unquestionably
3 substantial.’” (quoting Singh, 638 F.3d at 1208)). Petitioner “has a legitimate and reasonably
4 strong private liberty interest under Mathews.” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1207. Accordingly,
5 the Court finds the first Mathews factor weighs in favor of Petitioner.
6 b. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation
7 “In evaluating the risk of erroneous deprivation in the context of noncitizen detention, the
8 Ninth Circuit has looked to whether the detainee has a statutory right to procedural protections,
9 such as individualized custody determinations and the right to seek additional bond hearings
10 throughout detention.” Jensen v. Garland, No. 5:21-cv-01195-CAS (AFM), 2023 WL 3246522,
11 at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2023). Here, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory
12 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (ECF No. 9 at 2–3.) Thus, Petitioner does not have a
13 statutory right to bond hearings. See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 297 (“[N]either § 1225(b)(1) nor
14 § 1225(b)(2) says anything whatsoever about bond hearings.”). Where, as here, Petitioner is not
15 statutorily entitled to any bond or custody redetermination hearing before a neutral
16 decisionmaker, the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty is high. See Rodriguez II, 715 F.3d at
17 1144 (“not[ing] that the discretionary parole system available to § 1225(b) detainees is not
18 sufficient to overcome the constitutional concerns raised by prolonged mandatory detention”
19 because the “parole process is purely discretionary and its results are unreviewable by IJs” and
20 “release decisions are based on humanitarian considerations and the public interest”).
21 Accordingly, the Court finds the second Mathews factor weighs in favor of Petitioner.
22 c. Government Interest
23 “[T]he government clearly has a strong interest in preventing aliens from ‘remain[ing] in
24 the United States in violation of our law.’” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1208 (quoting Demore,
25 538 U.S. at 518, 515). “These are interests of the highest order that only increase with the
26 passage of time.” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1208. “The government interest in immigration
27 enforcement in general is surely substantial. But the question here is not the government’s
1 providing him with a bond hearing. Zerezghi v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 955
2 F.3d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 2020). See Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off., No. 3:19-cv-01358-SB, 2020
3 WL 1862254, at *7 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2020) (The “government interest at stake here is not the
4 continued detention of Petitioner, but the government’s ability to detain him without a bond
5 hearing.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1855189 (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020);
6 Henriquez, 2022 WL 2132919, at *5 (“Although the Government has a strong interest in
7 enforcing the immigration laws and in ensuring that lawfully issued removal orders are promptly
8 executed, the Government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without providing an individualized
9 bond hearing is low.”). Accordingly, the Court finds the third Mathews factor weighs in favor of
10 Petitioner.
11 Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends finding that Petitioner is entitled to relief
12 on Count 3 and due process requires Petitioner be provided a bond hearing.
13 C. Substantive Due Process and Family Integrity
14 In Count 4 of the petition, Petitioner asserts that “[f]amily separation + excessive force
15 constitute unconstitutional punishment.” (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Petitioner contends that the
16 “government violently seized Petitioner in front of her minor child” and because “[f]amily unity
17 is a protected liberty interest,” “[g]overnment conduct causing unnecessary family trauma
18 violates substantive due process.” (Id. at 7.)
19 To violate “the well-established substantive due process right to family integrity,” “the
20 alleged conduct must ‘shock[ ] the conscience’ and ‘offend the community’s sense of fair play
21 and decency.’” Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2012) (alternation in
22 original) (quoting Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172–73 (1952)). The Court finds Aguilar
23 v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security,
24 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007), instructive and persuasive. Aguilar involved hundreds of
25 undocumented noncitizens who were detained following a raid on a factory in Massachusetts.
26 Due to a shortage of bed space in Massachusetts, ICE transported a substantial number of the
27 detainees to distant locations, such as Texas. Id. at 6. The Aguilar class alleged that ICE’s actions
1 decisions as to the care, custody, and control of their children. Id. at 7, 18–19. In finding that
2 there was no violation of the class’s substantive due process rights, the First Circuit stated:
3 Our thinking is influenced by a realization that the evenhanded enforcement of the
immigration laws, in and of itself, cannot conceivably be held to violate
4 substantive due process. See Payne–Barahona, 474 F.3d at 2; de Robles v. INS,
485 F.2d 100, 102 (10th Cir. 1973). Any interference with the right to family
5 integrity alleged here was incidental to the government’s legitimate interest in
effectuating detentions pending the removal of persons illegally in the country.
6 See Demore, 538 U.S. at 523, 123 S.Ct. 1708 (recognizing “detention during
deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation
7 process”).
8 This is critically important because every such detention of a parent, like every
lawful arrest of a parent, runs the risk of interfering in some way with the parent’s
9 ability to care for his or her children. See Payne–Barahona, 474 F.3d at 3. That a
detention has an impact on the cohesiveness of a family unit is an inevitable
10 concomitant of the deprivation of liberty inherent in the detention itself. So long
as the detention is lawful, that so-called deprivation of the right to family integrity
11 does not violate the Constitution.
12 We hold, therefore, that such an incidental interference, standing alone, is not of
constitutional magnitude. To rule otherwise would risk turning every lawful
13 detention or arrest of a parent into a substantive due process claim. That would
place new and unprecedented constraints on law enforcement activities. Such
14 constraints would be unwarranted.
15 . . .
16 We see the matter this way. Although the interest of parents in the care, custody,
and control of their offspring is among the most venerable of the liberty interests
17 protected by the Fifth Amendment, see, e.g., Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65, 120 S.Ct.
2054; Hatch v. Dep’t for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12, 20 (1st
18 Cir. 2001), the petitioners have not demonstrated that this guarantee of
substantive due process encompasses their assertions. After all, the right to family
19 integrity has been recognized in only a narrow subset of circumstances.
20 To be sure, the petitioners cite cursorily to cases that deal with this right but they
conspicuously fail to build any bridge between these cases and the facts that they
21 allege. We do not think that this is an accident. The petitioners’ claims seem
markedly different from those scenarios that courts heretofore have recognized
22 under the rubric of family integrity. They have not alleged that the government
has interfered permanently with their custodial rights. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois,
23 405 U.S. 645, 649, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). Nor have they alleged
that the government has meddled with their right to make fundamental decisions
24 regarding their children’s education, see, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390,
400, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), or religious affiliation, see, e.g.,
25 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
Taken most favorably to the petitioners, the interference alleged here is transitory
26 in nature and in no way impinges on parental prerogatives to direct the upbringing
of their children.
27
We have scoured the case law for any authority suggesting that claims similar to
1 Process Clause, and we have found none. That chasm is important because, given
the scarcity of “guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered
2 area,” courts must be “reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due
process.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138
3 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (quoting Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112
S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)).
4
5 Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 22–24 (footnote omitted).
6 Like the petitioners in Aguilar, Petitioner’s “claims seem markedly different from those
7 scenarios that courts heretofore have recognized under the rubric of family integrity.” 510 F.3d at
8 23. The Court recognizes the burden Petitioner’s immigration proceedings and prolonged
9 detention has placed on her family and is sympathetic to her situation. However, Petitioner has
10 provided no authority in support of her claim. Accordingly, the Court recommends finding that
11 Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on Claim 4.
12 D. Medical
13 In Count 5 of the petition, Petitioner asserts that “[f]ailure to provide post-surgical care
14 violates detainee rights.” (ECF No. 1 at 8.) Petitioner previously underwent gastric sleeve
15 surgery and requires specialized nutrition, vitamin supplementation, and monitoring. Petitioner
16 alleges that failure to provide care risks malnutrition, organ damage, and surgical complications.
17 (Id. at 7.) Respondents argue that claims regarding medical issues are not cognizable in a federal
18 habeas petition, citing to Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2023). (ECF No. 9 at 3.)
19 A claim is cognizable in federal habeas corpus when a prisoner challenges “the fact or
20 duration of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the
21 shortening of its duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). In contrast, a civil
22 rights action is the proper method to challenge the conditions of confinement. McCarthy v.
23 Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141–42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. The Ninth Circuit has “long
24 held that prisoners may not challenge mere conditions of confinement in habeas corpus.” Nettles
25 v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890,
26 891–92 (9th Cir. 1979)). See Shook v. Apker, 472 F. App'x 702, 702–03 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
27 that district court did not err in treating conditions of confinement claims as arising under Bivens
v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241);
1 Alcala v. Rios, 434 F. App'x 668, 669–70 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court did not err
2 in finding that conditions of confinement claims are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241).
3 In Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2023), two federal prisoners “challenge[d]
4 the dismissals of their habeas corpus petitions in which they asserted that their incarceration
5 during the COVID-19 pandemic violated the Eighth Amendment and sought release from
6 custody.” Id. at 1062. Holding that “the relevant question is whether, based on the allegations in
7 the petition, release is legally required irrespective of the relief requested,” the Ninth Circuit
8 found that “Sands has failed to allege facts to support his legal contention that his detention was
9 unlawful because no set of conditions exist that would cure the constitutional violations.” Id. at
10 1072, 1075. “Because Sands’s claims lie outside the historic core of habeas corpus . . . the
11 district court properly found it lacked jurisdiction to hear Sands’s petition.” Id. at 1075.
12 Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit has stated that “Pinson solidified the rule that a habeas claim is
13 one challenging the fact of confinement, rather than the conditions of confinement.” Doe v.
14 Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2024).
15 “Petitioner’s allegations that continued custody poses a substantial risk of serious harm,
16 without more, do not state a habeas claim when the asserted constitutional violation is the alleged
17 inadequacy of medical care and remedial measures short of release would address any such
18 circumstance.” Boscan v. Becerra, No. 1:26-CV-00651-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 310093, at *2
19 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026). Accordingly, the Court recommends finding that Petitioner is not
20 entitled to habeas relief on Claim 5.
21 E. Remedy
22 “The Court finds, consistent with other post-Jennings cases, that the appropriate remedy
23 is a bond hearing before an immigration judge rather than immediate release.” Lopez, 631 F.
24 Supp. 3d at 882. See Doe v. Becerra, 697 F. Supp. 3d 937, 948 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“[C]ourts in
25 this Circuit have regularly found that the IJ is the proper authority to conduct bond hearings and
26 determine a detainee’s risk of flight or dangerousness to the community.” (citing Martinez, 36
27 F.4th at 1223 (“district courts throughout this circuit have ordered immigration courts to conduct
1 01695-GPC (NLS), 2018 WL 840253, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2018) (“The Court finds the IJ is
2 uniquely qualified and situated to make neutral administrative determinations about Petitioner’s
3 eligibility for release on bond and/or placement in a supervised release program[.]”).
4 The Court further finds that “the government must prove by clear and convincing
5 evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond” and
6 that the bond hearing must comport with the other requirements of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d
7 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating
8 that “the BIA properly noted that the government bore the burden to establish by clear and
9 convincing evidence that Martinez is a danger to the community” with respect to a bond hearing
10 ordered pursuant to the Due Process Clause). In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a
11 danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention without
12 bond,” the immigration judge should consider Petitioner’s financial circumstances and
13 alternative conditions of release. Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 1000. See Black, 103 F.4th at 138 (The
14 district court “correctly directed the immigration judge (“IJ”), in setting his bond and
15 establishing appropriate terms for his potential release, to consider his ability to pay and
16 alternative means of assuring appearance.”).
17 III.
18 RECOMMENDATION
19 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:
20 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED on Count 3 and
21 DENIED on all other counts; and
22 2. Respondents be directed to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before
23 an immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder,
24 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government must prove by clear and
25 convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to
26 justify denial of bond,” id. at 1203. In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a
27 danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention
1 circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976,
2 1000 (9th Cir. 2017).
3 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District
4 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
5 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
6 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file
7 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any
8 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
9 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days
10 | after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate
11 | Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file
12 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
13 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d
14 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le
17 | Dated: _ April 28, 2026 _ OES
STANLEY A. BOONE
18 United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28