(HC) Mungia Zejada v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility

Aug 5, 2026
1:26-cv-05651

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER‘S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner‘s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) filed in conjunction with his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his ongoing immigration detention. (Doc. No. 1.)

This court has previously addressed the legal issues raised the petition. (Doc. No. 1.) Specifically, this court has found that a noncitizen who has lived in the United States for an extended period of time without having been admitted is subject to discretionary detention during removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing under that section. See Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (granting injunctive relief of immediate release for noncitizen who was detained by U.S. immigration authorities after living in the United States for over twenty years); Barajas Ortiz v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01167-DC-SCR, 2026 WL 508419 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who had lived in United States for over 30 years); Acevedo Duran v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01108-DC-CSK, Doc. No. 11 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who had lived in United States for approximately 2–3 years); Zuniga Cruz v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01818-DC-EFB, 2026 WL 890471 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition as to the petitioner‘s Immigration and Nationality Act claim where the petitioner lived in the United States for eight years before his detention); Mendez Juarez v. Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center, No. 1:26-cv-02045-DC-CSK, Doc. Nos. 1, 14 (same as to noncitizen who lived in United Stats for approximately four years); Calle Brito v. Santacruz, No. 1:26-cv-02355-DC-CSK, Doc. Nos. 1, 14 (same as to noncitizen who resided in United States for approximately 3.5 years); Jimenez Orellana v. Johnson, 1:26-cv-02960-DJC-SCR, Doc. Nos. 1, 9 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who resided in United States for approximately 1–2 years); Rauda Molina v. Chestnut, 1:26-cv-01644-DJC-JDP, Doc. Nos. 1, 10 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who resided in United States for approximately two years).

On July 21, 2026, the court issued an order informing the parties that it was considering ruling directly on the petition and asking both parties whether they oppose simultaneous resolution of the motion and habeas petition. (Doc. No. 6.) The court also directed Respondents to address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from this court‘s prior orders in Alvarez Maciel and Barajas Ortiz. (Id.)

On July 22, 2026, Respondents filed their opposition to Petitioner‘s motion on the same legal grounds as those addressed by the court in Alvarez Maciel and Barajas Ortiz. (Doc. No. 8.) However, Respondents factually distinguish Petitioner‘s claim from the aforementioned cases by emphasizing that Petitioner was detained by immigration authorities following his arrest for the crime of threatening another with the intent to terrorize, a felony under state law. (Id. at 2; Doc. No. 8-1 at 2–3.) Respondents attach Petitioner‘s FBI RAP sheet showing that Petitioner was arrested for this crime on February 5, 2026. (Doc. No. 8-2 at 7–8.) That case is still pending and led to Petitioner‘s immigration detention. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 2–3.) Respondents further indicate that they do not oppose the court ruling directly on the petition. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) Given that Petitioner is proceeding pro se and the court will be granting the relief he seeks, the court will not await the filing of a reply by Petitioner as that would delay the relief he seeks in his petition.

Because Respondents have not made any new legal arguments or identified any legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the court‘s aforementioned prior decisions, the court will grant Petitioner‘s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) and petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) for the reasons set forth in the court‘s order in Zuniga Cruz.1 However, unlike the petitioner in Zuniga Cruz who had no criminal record, Petitioner here was arrested shortly following his arrest for threatening another with the intent to terrorize, and felony charges relating to that arrest remain pending. (Doc. Nos. 8-1 at 2–3; 8-2 at 7–8.) This court has previously found that where the government asserts a non-pretextual basis to detain a noncitizen who has not previously been released from immigration custody pending removal proceedings, the proper remedy for the government‘s failure to provide the petitioner with a bond hearing is a post-deprivation bond hearing, not immediate release. Chateauneuf v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01073-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 523695, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026) (“[W]here the government adequately alleges that a changed circumstance warrants a petitioner‘s immigration detention, the proper remedy for a failure to provide a bond hearing is a post-deprivation bond hearing, not immediate release.“).

Accordingly,

  1. Petitioner‘s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) and motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) are GRANTED as follows:
    1. Within fourteen (14) days, Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner Artemio Mungia Zejada (A-240-465-115) a bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8) at which Petitioner shall bear the burden of showing that he is not a flight risk or a risk to community safety; and
    2. If Respondents fail to provide Petitioner a bond hearing within fourteen (14) days, Petitioner shall be immediately released from Respondents’ custody;
  2. Petitioner‘s remaining motions (Doc. Nos. 3, 4) are DENIED as having been rendered moot by this order;
  3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility; and
  4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2026

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Notes

1
Because the court is granting the petition on statutory grounds, the court need not address any additional grounds raised in the petition. See N.K. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00292-KES-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 130345, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (granting habeas petition as to the second count of the petition and not addressing other counts because the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought based on the court‘s ruling as to that second count); Constantinovici v. Bondi, No. 3:25-cv-02405-RBM-AHG, 2025 WL 2898985, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) (granting habeas petition based on due process claim and “declin[ing] to address the remaining grounds in the Petition for seeking release“).