Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDO T.H., Civil No. 1:26-cv-03179-MWJS

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

A# 205-532-272

WARDEN OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY

ANNEX, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Alfredo T.H.1 petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. He notes that after he entered the United States in March 2024, he was detained

by immigration authorities, placed into removal proceedings, and subsequently

released on his own recognizance and placed into ICE’s “Alternatives to Detention”

(ATD) program. Dkt. No. 10-2. While on release, Petitioner has been required to abide

by a number of restrictive conditions, including GPS monitoring as a component of the

ATD program. See id.; Dkt. No. 10-4. And until February 2026, it appears that

Petitioner satisfactorily complied with all of his release conditions.

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

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.

But Respondents allege that on eight occasions in February and March 2026,

Petitioner violated the conditions of his release. All of these violations, with labels such

as “Tracker Low Battery,” “Tracker Still Missed Call,” and “Tracker Missed Callback,”

appear linked to the GPS monitoring requirement. See Dkt. No. 10-5. According to

Petitioner, there was a straightforward reason for these apparent violations: he had

been “having technical issues with the GPS monitor” and believed “it may have been

defective”—concerns which he communicated to his ICE supervisors. Dkt. No. 1, at pg.

2.

So when ICE called him into their field office to address the issues with the GPS

monitor on March 21, 2026—six days after the most recent alleged violation—Petitioner

duly appeared as requested. When he did so, he was arrested and detained by

immigration authorities without any notice or process. He has been in immigration

detention ever since. And just as the government gave him no prior opportunity to

forestall his arrest and detention, it has given him no procedural opportunity to

challenge his detention now that he is in custody. Petitioner thus invokes this court’s

habeas jurisdiction, contending that his arrest and detention, without any pre-

deprivation process, violated his constitutional due process rights.

After appointed counsel moved for a Preliminary Injunction in this case, Dkt. No.

8, the court informed the parties of its intention to rule directly on the Petition and

ordered Respondents to show cause whether any factual or legal issues distinguished

this case from cases such as Vikrant S. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Det. Facility,

No. 1:26-cv-02780-MWJS, 2026 WL 1235115 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2026); John M.Z. v. Noem,

No. 1:26-cv-02925-MWJS, 2026 WL 1125790 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026); and Yon Kervis U.

v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-2066, 2026 WL 88983 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026). Dkt. No. 9. In

their opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Petition, Respondents

contend that this case is distinguishable from those referenced in the court’s Order to

Show Cause “because here, it is documented that Petitioner was detained for violating

his conditions of release and further because Petitioner has been ordered removed,

which was not the circumstance in the cited cases.” Dkt. No. 10, at pg. 3.

But this court and many others have rejected this argument in similar cases. See,

e.g., Guzman Colque v. Warden, Cal. City Detention Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-03281, 2026 WL

1275279 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2026); Lopez Lopez v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01359, 2026 WL

1108162 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026); Oliva Funez v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01845, 2026 WL

972548 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 1125781

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026). The court has considered these precedents and concluded that

they reached the correct result based on the current state of Supreme Court and circuit

precedent.

When the government released Petitioner on his own recognizance, it assessed

that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. It has offered no

persuasive reason to reach a different conclusion today. To this day, Petitioner has no

criminal history. And although an Immigration Judge has entered an order of removal

against Petitioner during his current detention, he has appealed that decision to the

Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitioner therefore was not subject to a removal order

at the time of his re-detention, and due to his pending appeal, there remains no final

order of removal against him.

That is not to say that in certain situations, evidence that a petitioner has violated

release conditions could not support an argument that changed circumstances required

re-detention without pre-deprivation process. But nothing in the record suggests that is

the case here. And on the record before it, the court cannot conclude that the alleged

violations—which Petitioner disputes were violations at all—were part of an effort by

Petitioner to hide from immigration authorities or abscond from supervision.

Moreover, when ICE called Petitioner in to address the violations, he voluntarily

appeared. To the extent Respondents wish to assert that these alleged violations

demonstrate a heightened risk of flight and therefore constitute changed circumstances

sufficient to justify Petitioner’s re-detention without pre-deprivation process, the

current record does not support that conclusion.2

2 Respondents also note that because “Petitioner’s removal order is not yet

administratively final,” he is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231,

but they argue that he is nonetheless subject to mandatory detention as an “applicant

for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Dkt. No. 10, at pg. 2. This court has rejected

that argument in many other cases, including those cited in this order. See also, e.g.,

Ganjanov v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-02946, 2026 WL 1131016 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026). For

the reasons stated in those decisions, the court rejects that argument again here.

Given the lack of any factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it

from the prior orders that this court has found persuasive, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is GRANTED as to Count One,

for the reasons stated in those prior orders. Because it is unnecessary to resolve the

remaining counts in the petition, the court declines to do so.

Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Alfred T.H.

(A# 205-532-272) from their custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional

restrictions on Petitioner, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-

deprivation/custody hearing. Respondents are permanently ENJOINED AND

RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with

constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice

describing the change of circumstances necessitating Petitioner’s arrest and detention,

and a timely hearing. At any such hearing, the government shall bear the burden of

establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the

community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner shall be allowed to have their counsel

present. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may

detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of

The court also finds Respondents’ argument that the removal order should affect

the court’s analysis of Petitioner’s re-detention unpersuasive. As Petitioner was not

subject to any order of removal at the time of his re-detention, it could not have justified

his re-detention without process.

removal, or in the event exigent or urgent circumstances arise that justify arresting and

detaining Petitioner before pre-deprivation process can be provided.

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

Petitioner. This order resolves all pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 22, 2026, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

A ss iQ»

5 @ /s/ Micah W.J. Smith

Mo

Micah W.J. Smith

United States District Judge

an

Sey, mo

Civil No. 1:26-03179-MWJS; Alfred T.H. v. Warden of the Central Valley Annex, et al.;

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS