Morales Torres v. Schmidt, 2:19-cv-00929

Petitioner Francisco Roman Morales Torres, a Mexican national detained by ICE since Sept. 4, 2018, challenges continued mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) via a § 2241 habeas petition.
Petitioner previously held DACA status (expired 2017) and has Illinois convictions (battery, possession of a stolen vehicle) that triggered mandatory detention as a criminal alien.
Petitioner admitted removability, applied for asylum and withholding, and an IJ granted asylum on April 22, 2019; the Department of Homeland Security appealed to the BIA and briefing was completed June 26, 2019.
Petitioner sought a bond hearing, arguing his roughly 10-month detention (without bond) violated due process because it is prolonged and effectively indefinite.
The government defended mandatory pre-removal detention under § 1226(c) and pointed to ongoing appeal and briefing as indication detention remains tied to removal proceedings.
The district court denied the petition without prejudice, finding detention under § 1226(c) was not, on the record, unreasonable, arbitrary, or violative of due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prolonged mandatory detention under § 1226(c) violated due process as applied to Torres	Torres: ~10 months detained without bond/hearing; detention is prolonged/indefinite and unconstitutional as applied	Gov: § 1226(c) mandates detention pending removal; detention here is tied to ongoing proceedings and not unreasonably prolonged	Court: Denied—detention not unreasonable or arbitrary given procedural posture and briefing schedule
Whether delays are attributable to petitioner and affect constitutional inquiry	Torres: continuances necessary for preparation and evaluation; should not count against him	Gov: petitioner requested continuances; delays do not transform statutory detention into constitutional violation	Court: delays largely attributable to petitioner; that fact weighs against finding due-process violation
Whether approaching one-year detention alone establishes constitutional violation	Torres: near-year detention implies unreasonableness	Gov: length alone insufficient; must examine circumstances and purpose of § 1226(c)	Court: length alone insufficient; must consider statutory purpose and case-specific factors; here no violation

Denmore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upholding mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and noting its purpose to prevent flight during removal proceedings)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (limiting post-removal detention under § 1231 as potentially indefinite and subject to due-process construal)
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (refusing to read a temporal limit or implicit bail right into § 1226(c); statutory text requires detention pending removal decision)