Background
Sabino Murrieta Sandoval, a noncitizen detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. He challenged his detention under the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. On March 20, 2026, he also sought a temporary restraining order. The district court directed the government to address whether any factual or legal issues distinguished the case from earlier decisions, including Quichimbo-Jimenez and Cardenas.
The government opposed interim relief but agreed to conversion of the motion into one for a preliminary injunction. It characterized Sandoval as an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), while acknowledging that the case did not appear substantively different from the cited cases. On March 23, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordered his immediate release, and barred re-detention absent exigent circumstances without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge under § 1226(a). It then referred the action to the assigned magistrate judge. The earlier order's factual and procedural background was incorporated into these findings and recommendations.
The Court’s Holding
After merits briefing closed, the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock. That decision rejected the government's detention theory, holding that noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A). Applying that controlling decision, the magistrate judge concluded that the government's applicant-for-admission argument failed. Because the record had not changed since the preliminary-injunction ruling, the court recommended granting habeas relief on both the statutory claim and the claim that detention without a hearing violated Fifth Amendment due process.
The recommendations also proposed a permanent injunction against re-detaining Sandoval unless the government proves at a pre-deprivation, constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is a flight risk or danger to the community and that custody is legally justified. He would be entitled to counsel at that hearing. The proposed injunction expressly would not resolve detention under different authority, such as § 1226(c) or § 1231. The court declined to address the Equal Access to Justice Act request as a habeas claim, leaving Sandoval to pursue fees and costs through a post-judgment motion.
These are findings and recommendations, not a final district-court judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition, issuing the permanent injunction, and directing entry of judgment for Sandoval and closure of the case. The document was submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), with seven days for objections and seven days after service of objections for responses. It also warned that failure to object timely may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- Rodriguez Vazquez supplied the controlling basis for rejecting the government's argument that Sandoval's detention was governed by § 1225(b)(2).
- The recommendation rested on both the statutory detention claim and the Fifth Amendment due process claim arising from detention without a hearing.
- The proposed permanent injunction would require clear and convincing evidence of flight risk or dangerousness at a constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
- The injunction would not decide whether detention could be justified under different statutory authority, including § 1226(c) or § 1231.
- The attorney-fees request was not resolved on the merits because the court said it could be raised in a post-judgment Equal Access to Justice Act motion.
Why It Matters
The recommendation shows the direct effect of Rodriguez Vazquez on an individual habeas case involving a noncitizen apprehended in the interior. It treats the statutory classification question as decisive of the government's asserted detention framework and connects that conclusion to the due process violation already addressed through interim relief.
The document also separates the merits of release and protection against re-detention from the procedural steps still required. Its proposed injunction is tailored to the authority presented in this case, and its fee discussion preserves that issue for a different procedural vehicle. Adoption, modification, or rejection of the recommendations remained for the district judge.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket