(HC) Cabrera Espinoza v. Becerra, 1:24-cv-01118

Adrian Cabrera Espinoza, a Mexican-born lawful permanent resident of the US, has been detained by ICE since November 2022 following a domestic incident and prior criminal convictions.
Espinoza challenged his detention via a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting prolonged detention violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
He received an individualized bond hearing in December 2023, where an immigration judge found him a flight risk that could not be mitigated by bond conditions.
His appeals through the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Ninth Circuit were unsuccessful; removal proceedings are ongoing, with various stays and motions still pending.
The habeas case was transferred to the Eastern District of California, where Espinoza argued continued detention is punitive and lacks due process, especially given the length and alleged conditions of confinement.
The court considered both substantive and procedural due process arguments, ultimately denying the habeas petition and all related requests.

Issue	Espinoza's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Is his prolonged detention punitive or violates substantive due process?	Detention is punitive, excessive in length, and not justified by any actual flight or danger risk; alternatives to detention exist	Detention is regulatory, not punitive, justified by risk of flight given removal order is imminent	Detention tied to flight risk, not punitive; no due process violation
Do length and conditions of detention violate due process?	Conditions at Golden State Annex are indistinguishable from criminal incarceration, degrading his health	Conditions are standard for all detainees, not excessive as applied to Espinoza	No evidence of punitive conditions specific to Espinoza; claim denied
Is he entitled to another bond hearing (procedural due process)?	New evidence, changed circumstances; previous hearing insufficient, especially regarding alternatives to detention	Multiple levels of review already provided, minimal risk of erroneous deprivation	Sufficient process provided; no entitlement to a second bond hearing
Does Zadvydas v. Davis limit his current detention?	Removal is not imminent, and so post-removal detention is unreasonable	Removal period only recently began, six-month Zadvydas period not yet elapsed	Zadvydas inapplicable; removal is reasonably foreseeable

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (post-removal-period detention is limited to period reasonably necessary to effect removal)
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (mandatory detention of criminal aliens pending removal is constitutional)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (no statutory right to periodic bond hearings for immigration detainees)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (due process protects against punitive civil detention; test for procedural due process)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-part balancing test for procedural due process)
Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (detention authority shifts from § 1226 to § 1231 after final removal order)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (conditions of confinement for pretrial civil detainees)
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (presumption of punitiveness arises when civil detainee’s conditions mirror those of criminal inmates)
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (government interests in detaining those subject to removal orders)