Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ANTONIO G.S., Civil No. 1:26-cv-04677-MWJS

Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs.

A# 216-027-746

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY

IMMIGATION PROCESSING CENTER, et

al.,

Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Jose Antonio G.S.1 is an immigration detainee proceeding with a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. No. 1. He originally

entered the United States in 1998 and remained in the country until he voluntarily

returned to Mexico in connection with immigration proceedings. Id. at pg. 9; Dkt. No.

6-1, at pg. 3. He reentered the United States shortly thereafter and has remained here

ever since. Id.

In September 2018, Petitioner was arrested by United States Customs & Border

Patrol agents and placed into removal proceedings. Dkt. No. 6-1, at pg. 3. After a brief

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.

detention, an immigration judge (IJ) ordered him released on $5,000 bond. Dkt. No. 6-3.

In a handwritten note on the release order, the IJ set a special condition: “Any

subsequent arrest will result in the Bond being revoked. No further Bond.” Id.

Petitioner was also required to appear for routine check-ins with Immigration &

Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a condition of his release. Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 1. And at

one such check-in on June 18, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and re-detained by ICE

without any opportunity to contest the re-detention. Id. Petitioner has remained in

immigration custody ever since. Although it is not clear whether Petitioner was

informed of the basis for his arrest, the record reflects that ICE arrested Petitioner “due

to his violating his immigration bond.” Dkt. No. 6-1, at pg. 2. And in briefing before

this court, the government submits that the infraction Petitioner was arrested for was a

violation of the condition requiring him to avoid future arrests or face bond revocation.

Specifically, they contend that Petitioner was arrested in October 2023 (and ultimately

convicted) for driving under the influence in Melbourne, Florida. Dkt. No. 6; see also

Dkt. Nos. 6-1, 6-2. Based on this arrest, immigration authorities revoked Petitioner’s

bond and arrested him in June 2025.

Petitioner does not dispute that he was arrested and convicted (via a no contest

plea) of driving under the influence in 2023; to the contrary, he candidly acknowledges

that his “criminal history is an important issue to [his] case” and that he does “not want

to hide or minimize [his] past mistakes.” Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 14. But he invokes this

court’s habeas jurisdiction on the basis that his arrest and detention, without any pre-

deprivation process, violated his constitutional due process rights. After reviewing the

petition, 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 Carlos Eduardo D.J. v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-

04029-MWJS, 2026 WL 1508426 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2026); Maxo Ben G. v. Warden of the

Mesa Verde Detention Facility, 1:26-cv-03776-MWJS, 2026 WL 1457554 (E.D. Cal. May 21,

2026); Kallebe C.F.L. v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-03651-MWJS, 2026 WL

1374754 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2026); Sergio D.L.S. v. Warden, California City Corr. Ctr., No.

1:26-cv-02821-MWJS, 2026 WL 1049713 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026).

In their response to the court’s Order to Show Cause, Respondents assert that

this case is indeed distinguishable from the cases cited in the court’s order. They argue

that Petitioner’s October 2023 arrest provided an appropriate basis to revoke his bond at

the June 2025 ICE check-in, insofar as it represented a clear violation of the IJ’s

handwritten release condition. As a result, the government contends, Petitioner must

therefore use the procedures available to him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)2 “to contest

DHS's determination that he violated the terms of his existing bond and its revocation

2 The parties agree that Petitioner was ordered removed on November 13, 2025,

and that he timely appealed that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Dkt. No.

1, at pg. 13; Dkt. No. 6, at pg. 2. As a result, Petitioner is not currently subject to a final

order of removal, and there is no dispute that his detention falls under § 1226(a) rather

than § 1231(a), as the government acknowledges. Dkt. No. 6, at pg. 2.

clause—and, if he disputes the custody outcome, . . . must seek review before the IJ and

then the BIA.” Dkt. No. 6, at pg. 1. In the government’s view, these procedures are not

only sufficient under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), but

also sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. See id. at pg. 3.

And that, they argue, is sufficient to distinguish this case from those cited in the court’s

order and to justify the denial of the petition.

The court thanks Respondents for their timely and well-argued response.

Respondents’ interpretation of how the INA applies to Petitioner in this case may very

well be a reasonable one. But it does not provide a basis to conclude that Petitioner’s

arrest by immigration authorities was not a due process violation in the first instance.

Even assuming that it was appropriate to arrest him for the alleged violation of his

release conditions, Respondents have not offered—and the record does not reflect,

given that the relevant criminal arrest took place over twenty months before his June

2025 re-detention—any justification for failing to provide Petitioner with pre-

deprivation process, even if there were changed circumstances or an individualized

basis that might conceivably support his detention.

And so while the court agrees with Respondents that this case is distinguishable

from those cases cited in the court’s order to show cause, many district judges, both in

this district and others, have nonetheless granted relief in cases analogous to this one.

See, e.g., Uriel P.T. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, No. 26-cv-04181-

MWJS, 2026 WL 1614090 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2026); Vikrant S. v. Warden of Golden State

Annex Detention Facility, No. 26-cv-02780-MWJS, 2026 WL 1235115 (E.D. Cal. May 5,

2026); John M.Z. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-2925, 2026 WL 1125790 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026);

Pengling Miao v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01271, 2026 WL 947020 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8,

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. And

for the reasons stated above, the court concludes that there is no factual or legal basis to

distinguish these prior decisions.

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 Two.

Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Jose Antonio G.S. (A#

216-027-746) 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 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

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.

IT I5 SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2026, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

a Git eS RP,

4 /s/ Micah W.J. Smith

Micah W.J. Smith

United States District Judge

ay

“Dz, 3 |

Civil No. 1:26-cv-04677-MWJS; Jose Antonio G.S. v. Warden, California City Immigration

Processing Center, et al.; ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS