# Warden > District Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11383803 ## Case - **Full name:** Jesus Gerardo Paz-Regalado v. Warden - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** May 21, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11383803 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11383803. Public record. Not legal advice.