Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE DE LA CRUZ-SOTO, No. 1:26-cv-04344-DAD-SCR (HC)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT

13 v. OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING

MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY

14 RESTRAINNG ORDER AND TO EXPEDITE

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY AS MOOT

15 DETENTION CENTER

(Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 11)

16 Respondent.

17

18 On June 8, 2026, petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for

19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) That same day, petitioner

20 filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking his immediate release from immigration

21 detention. (Doc. No. 2.) Thereafter, the court set a briefing schedule as to petitioner’s motion for

22 a temporary restraining order and directed respondent to address whether any provision of law or

23 fact in this case would distinguish it from the circumstances addressed in several prior cited cases

24 that this court has decided. (Doc. No. 5.) In addition, the court directed that if respondent

25 opposed the court ruling on the underlying habeas corpus petition based on the briefing currently

26 before it, respondent was to indicate in the opposition and provide substantive reasons in support

27 of that position. (Id.)

28 /////

1 Respondent’s opposition represents that petitioner previously sought habeas relief from

2 this court in Case No. 2:26-cv-00823-DAD-AC. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) A review of the docket in that

3 previous action reveals that, on March 16, 2026, this court granted petitioner's motion for

4 temporary restraining order, finding that petitioner was not subject to detention pursuant to 8

5 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), pursuant to the court's prior reasoning in Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden,

6 California City Corr. Ctr., No. 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB, 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10,

7 2026), and ordering that respondent provide petitioner with a bond hearing within 10 days

8 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (2:26-cv-00823-DAD-AC, Doc. No. 9.) In that order, the court

9 denied the request for petitioner's immediate release without prejudice to its refiling. (Id.) A

10 further review of the docket in the earlier-filed action indicates that, on April 24, 2026, petitioner

11 previously filed a motion for the court to enforce its prior judgment by ordering that respondent

12 provide him a bond hearing. (Id., Doc. No. 13.) On April 27, 2026, respondent filed a response

13 to that request stating that, on April 21, 2026, petitioner was ordered removed from the United

14 States, but that his detention authority had not yet shifted because his removal order was not

15 administratively final. (Id., Doc. No. 14.) On May 28, 2026, before the court resolved the motion

16 to enforce judgment, petitioner filed a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of

17 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Case No. 2:26-cv-00823-DAD-AC, Doc. No. 15.) On June 1,

18 2026, the Clerk of the Court closed that case pursuant to the petitioner’s motion for voluntary

19 dismissal.1 (Id., Doc. No. 16.)

20 In respondent’s opposition in this present case, it attaches the immigration judge’s order

21 regarding a bond hearing, which states that the “TRO bond request [was] withdrawn by

22 [petitioner].” (Doc. No. 8-1 at 1.) Further, respondent argues that petitioner’s detention is proper

23 because he is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 8 at 1-

24 2.) The court rejected this same argument advanced by respondent in petitioner’s earlier action,

25 as described above. Respondent further states that petitioner is subject to a “final order of

26 removal.” (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) That is also currently incorrect. While the immigration judge has

27

1 The closure of that previous case by the Clerk without prejudice need not be addressed because

28 of the relief that is granted in this order.

1 ordered petitioner removed, petitioner has appealed that removal order to the Board of

2 Immigration Appeals and, as a result, there is not yet a “final order” of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §

3 1241.1(a) (appealed removal order becomes final only upon dismissal of appeal by the BIA).

4 Respondent identifies no other detention authority which permits petitioner's continued

5 detention. In short, respondent has been on notice for months of petitioner's request for a bond

6 hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and has argued that, despite this court's prior finding and

7 with no argument that this court should reconsider that prior finding, petitioner is not entitled to a

8 bond hearing because he is subject to mandatory detention. The court again rejects respondent's

9 argument, as it has several times before. See Wasef v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP,

10 2026 WL 392389 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026).

11 The question becomes what the proper remedy given the current record. The court finds,

12 considering respondent continuing to misclassify petitioner's detention, despite a binding order

13 finding that petitioner was not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and there being

14 no real bond hearing provided following notice of petitioner’s request for months, the appropriate

15 remedy is release. See, e.g., Feng v. Lyons, No. 1:26-cv-00235-DJC-SCR, 2026 WL 472635, at

16 *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026) (“Provision of a bond hearing after months of detention without the

17 opportunity to seek release on bond cannot be said to satisfy due process where that bond hearing

18 is a matter of statutory right.”). Moreover, to preserve the status quo ante litem, the court finds

19 that immediate release is the appropriate remedy in this case.

20 For the reasons above,

21 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED as

22 follows:

23 a. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner, Jose De La

24 Cruz-Soto, A-File No. 097-700-438, from respondent’s custody on the

25 conditions, if any, he was subject to prior to his detention on or about

26 January 23, 2026;

27 b. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining

28 petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing

] petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge,

2 at which hearing the burden will be set in accordance with 8 U.S.C.

3 § 1226(a), and its implementing regulations;

4 3. Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) and motion to

5 expedite (Doc. No. 11) are hereby DENIED as moot in light of this order granting

6 his habeas corpus petition on the merits;

7 4.. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the warden of

8 the California City Detention Center; and

9 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of petitioner and to

10 close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

| Dated: _ June 30, 2026 Da A. 2, ye

13 DALE A. DROZD

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28