Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RONI EMILIO CANALES RODRIGUEZ Case No. 2:26-cv-01381-JLT-FJS

(A No. 244-155-926),

12 ORDER WITHDRAWING REFERENCE TO

Petitioner, THE ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

13 GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

v. HABEAS CORPUS; AND ORDERING

14 PETITIONER’S IMMEDIATE RELEASE

15 WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY (Doc. 1.)

DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,

16

Respondents.

17

18 Roni Emilio Canales Rodriguez is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a

19 pending habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) This matter was initially referred

20 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 (See Doc. 5.) In the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency, the undersigned hereby

22 withdraws that reference, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS the petition for writ of

23 habeas corpus.

24 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

25 Petitioner a citizen and national of Honduras. On April 25, 2023, Petitioner applied for

26 entry at the San Ysidro West Port of Entry under the CBP One application. (Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 6-1

27 at 2.) Petitioner was subsequently paroled into the country. (Id.) On September 19, 2025,

28 Petitioner was arrested by local police for driving without a driver’s license. (Doc. 6-1 at 8-9.)

1 Petitioner was then transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. (Doc. 6-1 at

2 2.) Apart from this traffic infraction, Petitioner claims to have “no criminal history.” (Doc. 1 at 5.)

3 There is also no indication in the record that Petitioner presents a flight risk or danger and

4 Respondents offer no evidence or argument to the contrary. (See Doc. 8.) Petitioner is currently

5 detained at California City Detention Center in California. (Doc. 1 at 3.)

6 On April 7, 2026, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

7 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) On April 26, 2026, Respondents filed a response to the habeas petition,

8 arguing that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set forth

9 at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (Doc. 6 at 2-3.)

10 On May 7, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed. (Doc. 8 at 1.) On May

11 14, 2026, this Court ordered Petitioner to file a notice indicating whether an appeal had been

12 filed. (Doc. 7.) On May 27, 2026, Petitioner informed the Court that he filed a timely appeal of

13 the immigration judge’s order with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) the previous day.

14 (Doc. 8.) As Petitioner filed a timely appeal, his order of removal is not final. See 8 U.S.C. §

15 1101(a)(47)(B).

16 II. LEGAL STANDARD

17 The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every

18 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)

19 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the

20 power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or

21 laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens

22 in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. R.

23 P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).

24 III. DISCUSSION

25 Petitioner claims that his ongoing detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing

26 before a neutral decisionmaker violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

27 Amendment. (See generally, Doc. 1.) To the extent that Respondents substantively address

28 Petitioner’s due process argument, they assert that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission”

1 subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) of the INA and therefore categorically

2 ineligible for a bond hearing. (See generally, Doc. 8.) Courts nationwide, including this one, have

3 rejected Respondents’ legal position and found the DHS policy unlawful. See e.g., Espinoza v.

4 Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Ortiz Donis

5 v. Chestnut, 1:25-CV-01228-JLT, 2025 WL 2879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v.

6 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Aguilera

7 v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025);

8 J.E.H.G. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01673-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9,

9 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec.

10 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal.

11 Jan. 20, 2026).

12 Respondents offer little to rebut Petitioner’s due process claim and do not provide any

13 justification for detaining Petitioner. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Court’s prior orders,

14 the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due

15 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

16 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

17 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Petitioner SHALL

18 be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY.

19 2. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner

20 unless the government provides notice to Petitioner a minimum of seven days in advance and

21 holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and applicable

22 regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered, and where the

23 government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or

24 danger to the community, such that physical custody is legally justified1;

25 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve California City Detention Facility in

26 1 If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without notice in advance, a post-deprivation hearing

consistent with the requirements set forth here SHALL be provided within seven days of the arrest.

27

Alternatively, if Petitioner becomes subject to a final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of

28 such order, Respondents may detain Petitioner for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal. In

1 | California City, California, with a copy of this Order.

2 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner.

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

| Dated: _ June 12, 2026 Cerin | Tower

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28