Chestnut

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFTON F., Civil No. 1:26-cv-03398-MWJS

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT

vs. PREJUDICE

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY A# 221-390-287

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Over sixteen months ago, Petitioner Clifton F.1 fled his home country and

entered the United States. He has been held in immigration detention ever since, first at

the Otay Mesa Detention Center and then at the California City Correctional Facility.

And on April 16, 2026, he filed with this court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, though it was not docketed until May 4. Dkt. No. 1. Because

Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies, and because the court does not find

a basis for excusing that failure under the circumstances presented here, the petition is

DENIED without prejudice.

1 For reasons previously explained in Sergio D.L.S. v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr.,

No. 1:26-cv-02821-MWJS, 2026 WL 1049713, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026), only

Petitioner’s first name and the initials of his last name are used in this order.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner entered the United States without authorization on January 6, 2025,

and was taken into immigration custody that same day. Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 5. He speaks

Konkani, a language of South Asia’s western coast. Throughout his detention, courts

and immigration officials have been unable to locate a Konkani interpreter, a difficulty

that has substantially complicated his participation in his own proceedings. In total, he

has been detained for approximately sixteen months.

While in detention, Petitioner applied for asylum. But following an asylum

interview that could not proceed for lack of an interpreter, he was permitted to apply

for relief but was found ineligible for a bond hearing. On November 21, 2025, an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered him removed. Dkt. No. 6-1, at pg. 2. He timely

appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on December 19, 2025. Id.

While that appeal was pending, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of California challenging his continued

detention without a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. See Fernandes v. Chestnut,

No. 25-cv-03813-JLS-MSB, at Dkt. No. 1. That court granted the petition and ordered a

bond hearing at which the government bore the burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that Petitioner posed a danger to the community or was a flight

risk. Id. at Dkt. No. 12. A hearing was held on February 2, 2026, and the IJ denied

bond, finding Petitioner to be a flight risk. Id. at Dkt. No. 20, at PageID.171. Petitioner

then sought to challenge the adequacy of that hearing in federal court without first

appealing the bond denial to the BIA. The court denied that challenge for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at PageID.172.

In the meantime, Petitioner was transferred to the California City Immigration

Processing Center, within this district. Dkt. No. 6-2, at pg. 1. And following that

transfer, he filed the present petition pro se, requesting release on parole or bond so that

he could follow his immigration proceedings from outside custody with the assistance

of counsel. Dkt. No. 1. He describes in his own hand the toll of the past sixteen months:

the isolation of being unable to communicate in his own language, difficulty eating and

a sense that his mental health has seriously deteriorated. See Dkt. No. 1, at pgs. 7, 9–11.

This court ordered briefing on the petition. Dkt. No. 3.

But on May 1, 2026—shortly after this petition was filed—Petitioner’s attorney

filed motions with the BIA to withdraw both his removal appeal and his bond appeal.

Dkt. No. 6-1, at pgs. 2, 10. In a declaration supporting the withdrawal of his removal

appeal, Petitioner stated that his mother is ill in his home country, that he is her only

son, and that he wishes to return to care for her. Dkt. No. 6-1, at pg. 5. Petitioner’s

withdrawal of the appeal means that the IJ’s November 21, 2025, removal order is now

final.

DISCUSSION

The government filed its response to the petition on May 9, 2026, and argues,

first, that this petition is an impermissible second or successive petition because

Petitioner already litigated his detention in the Southern District of California. Dkt. No.

6, at pg. 2 (citing Fernandes v. Warden, Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No. 25-CV-3813 JLS (MSB),

2026 WL 1005075 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2026)).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), a court need not entertain a second habeas application

where the legality of the same detention has already been adjudicated on a prior

application. But Petitioner’s circumstances have changed since the Southern District

proceedings: he has been transferred to a new district with a different custodian, his

removal order has now become final, and the nature of any viable constitutional claim

has shifted accordingly. So the court does not rest its decision on this ground alone.

This court also considers whether Petitioner has exhausted his administrative

remedies. Although 28 U.S.C. § 2241 does not expressly require exhaustion, the Ninth

Circuit requires habeas petitioners to exhaust available judicial and administrative

remedies as a prudential matter before seeking relief under that statute. Castro-Cortez v.

INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001). A noncitizen challenging an IJ’s adverse bond

determination must appeal that determination to the BIA before seeking habeas review.

Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). The Southern District of

California applied this rule when it declined to review the IJ’s February 2, 2026, bond

denial on the ground that Petitioner had not yet appealed to the BIA. Fernandes, 2026

WL 1005075 at *2. And this court agrees with that reasoning.

The court recognizes one challenge, however. After the Southern District denied

relief and directed Petitioner to the BIA, Petitioner did file a bond appeal with the BIA

on March 3, 2026. But he then, through counsel, voluntarily withdrew it on May 1,

2026. As a result, there is presently no administrative proceeding pending and no

further BIA review available for the bond denial. The court does not fault Petitioner—

who is representing himself in this habeas proceeding and whose stated reasons for

withdrawing his removal appeal reflect concern for a sick parent—for the situation in

which he now finds himself. But the exhaustion requirement exists to ensure that the

BIA has the opportunity to correct errors before federal courts intervene, and a

petitioner cannot satisfy that requirement through a process he has voluntarily

discontinued. Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007). Petitioner has not

shown that exhaustion would be futile, that administrative remedies are inadequate, or

that irreparable injury would result from requiring it. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d

976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). The petition must therefore be denied.

The court notes also that with his removal now final, Petitioner’s detention is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). Under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001),

detention beyond six months following a final order of removal is presumptively

unreasonable—and the government must demonstrate a significant likelihood of

removal in the reasonably foreseeable future to justify continued detention. This court

and others in this circuit have applied that principle to order release where the

government failed to make the required showing. See, e.g., Malik v. Dosanj, No. 26-00060

MWJS-WRP, 2026 WL 638483, at *4 (D. Haw. Mar. 6, 2026); Vu v. Dosanj, No. 1:26-cv-

00013-MWJS, 2026 WL 594740 (D. Haw. Mar. 3, 2026).

Petitioner’s removal order became final only recently, and he therefore may not

yet havea compelling Zadvydas claim. If Petitioner remains detained and removal is not

carried out expeditiously, he may wish to file a new petition raising this claim,

supported by evidence that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the

reasonably foreseeable future. For these reasons, the court DENIES the present petition

without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment for

Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2026, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

oo Ry E>.

gy 6), /s/ Micah W.J. Smith

| Micah W.J. Smith

> # A United States District Judge

Rez, ie SS

Civil No. 1:26-03398-MWJS; Clifton F. v. Warden, et al; ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE