(HC) Gutierrez Hernandez v. Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility

Aug 5, 2026
1:26-cv-04803

Gabriel Johandry Gutierrez Hernandez is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a pending habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) This matter was initially referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. 6.) In the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency, the undersigned hereby withdraws that reference, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner a citizen and national of Venezuela who entered the United States on or around May 19, 2024, near Brownsville, Texas. (Doc. 1 at 7; Doc. 11-1 at 3.) He was subsequently apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol and issued a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable pursuant to § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Doc. 11-1 at 8-10.) He was released from custody and came to live in Texas. (Id.)

On April 28, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by local police in Texas for failing to dim his high beam headlights and for driving without a valid driver’s license and vehicle registration. (Doc. 11-1 at 4.) Petitioner was then transferred to ICE custody. (Id.) Apart from this traffic infraction, Respondents claim that Petitioner has “no criminal history.” (Doc. 11 at 1.) There is also no indication in the record that Petitioner presents a flight risk or danger to the community, and Respondents offer no evidence or argument to the contrary. Petitioner is detained at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California. (See Doc. 1 at 1.)

On June 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 12 at 10.) On July 15, 2026, Respondents filed a response to the habeas petition, arguing that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. 11.) On July 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply. (Doc. 11.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims that his ongoing detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (See Doc. 1.) Respondents argue that as an “applicant for admission” under expedited removal procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), Petitioner’s detention is therefore “mandatory.” (Doc. 7 at 1-2.) Pursuant to Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), the Court finds that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s detention. See also, J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01309-JLT-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01228-JLT-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 32879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT (HC), 2025 WL 32654446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026). Moreover, for the reasons articulated in those cases, the Court concludes Petitioner is re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

  1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Petitioner SHALL be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY.
  2. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless the government provides notice to Petitioner a minimum of seven days in advance and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and applicable regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered, and where the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community, such that physical custody is legally justified1;
  3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve Central Valley Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California, with a copy of this Order.

///

///

///

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notes

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. Alternatively, if Petitioner becomes subject to a final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of such order, Respondents may detain Petitioner for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal. In this event, Respondent’s SHALL provide a bond hearing in the timeframe required by law.