The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JESUS GERARDO PAZ-REGALADO, No. 1:26-cv-03810-DAD-CKD (HC)
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING
14 WARDEN, MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT
15 Respondent.
(Doc. No. 1)
16
17
18 On May 18, 2026, petitioner Jesus Gerardo Paz-Regalado, A-File No. 249-001-034, filed
19 a combined petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his
20 detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and a temporary restraining order
21 seeking his immediate release from custody. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 19, 2026, the court set a
22 briefing schedule as to petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and directed
23 respondent to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from
24 the circumstances addressed in several prior cited cases that this court has decided. (Doc. No. 3.)
25 In the same order, the court further indicated that if it determined that petitioner was entitled to
26 the relief sought in his temporary restraining order, then the court would rule on the merits of the
27 underlying petition. (Id.) The court further directed respondent that if opposed the court ruling
28 on the underlying petition based upon the briefing presently before the court respondent must so
1 indicate in the opposition and provide substantive reasons in support of that position in the
2 opposition. (Id.)
3 On May 20, 2026, respondent filed an opposition to the pending motion arguing that
4 petitioner is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1225(b)(2) (Doc. No. 5 at 1–3), an argument that the court has previously rejected on several
6 occasions. See Wasef v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP (HC), 2026 WL 392389, at *2–
7 3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026). Respondent did not state any opposition to the court ruling on the
8 merits of the petition based upon the current briefing. Accordingly, the court will rule directly on
9 the petition.
10 The circumstances surrounding petitioner’s immigration history are not entirely clear.
11 Petitioner alleges that he entered the United States in 1999 and has continuously resided in this
12 country for over two decades. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.) However, respondent submits petitioner’s Form
13 I-831 documentation which details his immigration history. (Doc. No. 5-1.) The Form I-831
14 reports that on or about September 19, 2024, petitioner was apprehended by ICE officials at or
15 near an ICE field office in Lubbock, Texas, then placed into removal proceedings, and issued a
16 notice to appear. (Doc. No. 5-1 at 2.) That form also reports that petitioner’s last date of entry
17 into this country was September 1, 2010. (Id.) Nonetheless, petitioner was ultimately released
18 from immigration detention custody after his September 2024.1
19 On or about March 3, 2026, petitioner was re-detained by ICE officials after he presented
20 himself in-person at the Dallas, Texas ICE field for a mandatory check-in appointment. (Doc.
21 Nos. 1 at 9; 5-1 at 3.) There is no indication that petitioner has been provided with a bond
22 hearing since his re-detention on March 3, 2026. On April 28, 2026, petitioner was ordered
23
24 1 While none of the evidence filed in support of the parties’ briefing reveals the circumstances
surrounding petitioner’s release, it almost certainly is the case that at some point after his
25
September 2024 encounter with immigration authorities, petitioner was released from custody
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Form I-831 reports that petitioner was taken into custody
26
from the “non-detained” lobby at a Dallas, Texas ICE field office on March 3, 2026 (Doc. No. 5-
27 1 at 2) and an arrest warrant was issued pursuant to § 1226(a) on the same day (Doc. No. 5-1 at
3). Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1117 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (“The use of a warrant is
28 strong evidence that petitioner may be detained, if at all, only pursuant to section 1226(a).”).
1 removed to Mexico by an immigration judge (“IJ”). (Doc. No. 5-4.) On April 28, 2026,
2 petitioner timely appealed the IJ’s order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and that
3 appeal remains pending. (Doc. No. 5-5.)
4 As a preliminary matter, petitioner is not in post-removal proceedings because his appeal
5 of the IJ’s final removal order remains pending before the BIA. See Garcia v. Albarran, No.
6 3:25-cv-10617, 2025 WL 3558838, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2025) (concluding that a petitioner
7 is not subject to a final order of removal where they timely appeal an IJ’s removal order to the
8 BIA, are “still awaiting adjudication[,] and has no final set date for a decision[.]”). Further,
9 having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s re-detention and the parties’
10 arguments, the court finds instructive its reasoning in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-
11 DAD-CSK, 2025 WL 3187578, at *2–5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) which is incorporated here,
12 and concludes that petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates due
13 process.
14 For the reasons above,
15 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary
16 restraining order (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED in part:
17 a. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED as follows:
18 i. Respondent is ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Jesus
19 Gerardo Paz-Regalado, A-File No. 249-001-034, from
20 respondent’s custody;
21 ii. Respondent is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining
22 petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without
23 written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge where
24 respondent will have the burden of establishing that petitioner is
25 either a danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence;
26 b. Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED as having
27 been rendered moot by this order granting of the petition for writ of habeas
28 corpus on the merits;
] 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the Golden State Annex Detention
2 Facility with a copy of this order; and
3 3. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and
4 to close this case.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
| Dated: _May 21, 2026 Da A. 2, sxe
7 DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28