The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 PATRICIO EDISON EXPINOZA- Case No. 1:26-cv-01429-JLT-HBK (HC)
GALLO,
12 ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL
Petitioner, BRIEFING
13
v.
14 SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner, an immigrant detainee in U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE)
18 custody at the California City Detention Facility in California City, California, has a counseled
19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pending under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). The petition
20 challenges, inter alia, his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as a violation of his Fifth
21 Amendment due process rights following the vacatur of his domestic violence conviction and the
22 immigration judge’s (“IJ”) termination of his removal proceedings. (Id. at 8). As relief,
23 Petitioner seeks, inter alia, immediate release from custody or, in the alternative, a bond hearing.
24 (Id.).
25 On March 9, 2026, Respondent filed a response the petition, requesting that the Court
26 either stay the proceedings or dismiss the petition without prejudice pending DHS’ appeal to the
27 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of the IJ’s decision terminating Petitioner’s removal
28 proceedings after the underlying domestic violence conviction was vacated. (Doc. 8).
1 Respondents argue that (1) DHS’s pursuit of appellate review before the BIA does not violate
2 Petitioner’s due process rights, regardless of the appeal’s merit, and (2) Petitioner previously
3 requested and received a custody redetermination hearing, at which release was denied based
4 solely on three prior DUI convictions, rather than the subsequently vacated domestic violence
5 conviction, and Petitioner did not appeal that determination. (Id.).
6 On March 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply arguing that (1) he is not required to exhaust
7 administrative remedies because he “litigated before the IJ and won,” and the government’s
8 appeal does not “restore statutory detention authority” under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because his
9 removal proceedings were terminated with prejudice; and (2) the October 8, 2026 bond hearing
10 does not satisfy due process because it predated a ”material change in Petitioner’s legal status”–
11 namely, the IJ’s November 18, 2025 decision terminating his removal proceedings with prejudice.
12 (Doc. 9).
13 The Court finds supplemental briefing would assist in resolving Petitioner’s claims.
14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
15 1) Within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, Petitioner shall submit
16 supplemental briefing as follows:
17 a. Update the Court as to the current status of Petitioner’s removal
18 proceedings, including (1) DHS’s appeal to the BIA of the IJ’s order,
19 and (2) any subsequent requests for custody redetermination. Because
20 Petitioner is undisputedly detained under the discretionary framework
21 of § 1226(a), he may request an additional bond hearing upon a
22 showing of materially changed circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. §
23 1003.19(e).
24 b. Provide specific legal authority supporting the argument that DHS
25 lacks statutory authority to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
26 while its appeal of the IJ’s decision terminating removal proceedings is
27 pending. Cf. Prior v. Andrews, 2025 WL 2675569, at *5 (E.D. Cal.
28 Sept. 18, 2025) (citing Matter of E-Y-F-G, I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2015)
] (“The Immigration Judge’s grant of relief in removal proceedings is
2 not final as it has been appealed.”).
3 c. Specifically address why Petitioner’s continued detention under §
4 1226(a) without a second bond hearing violates due process,
5 particularly in light of Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland. 53 F.4th 1189,
6 1207-14 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that due process did not require
7 second bond hearing for noncitizen detained over fourteen months
8 after an initial § 1226(a) bond hearing, where no constitutional error
9 was shown in the first hearing and the noncitizen could seek a second
10 hearing upon demonstrating changed circumstances under 8 C.F.R. §
11 1003.19(e)).
12 2) Within seven (7) days of service of Petitioner’s supplemental briefing,
13 Respondents shall file a response addressing the issues above and providing
14 additional argument and legal authority as appropriate.
15
'© | Dated: _ May 20, 2026 Wola Th. fareh Zaskth
17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28