A Central District court ordered a bond hearing within seven days for a detained visa overstay but rejected immediate release and a heightened evidentiary burden.
A Central District court ordered an immigration detainee released after the government failed to answer his constitutional claims and a bond hearing could not resolve them.
A Central District of California court ordered an immigration supervisee released because re-detention without adequate process, compounded by a language barrier, risked an erroneous loss of liberty.
A California federal court granted an unopposed habeas petition and restored an immigration detainee to prior supervision conditions, barring another re-detention without lawful process.
A Central District of California court ordered an immigration supervisee released and required notice and a neutral hearing before future re-detention, plus safeguards for any third-country removal.
A Central District of California court dismissed an immigration detainee’s bond challenge without prejudice because ordinary BIA review remained available and no exhaustion exception was shown.
A magistrate judge recommended partial habeas relief for defects in immigration re-detention while rejecting a broader claim that removal was not reasonably foreseeable.
The Eastern District ordered an immigration detainee released because officials held a bond hearing that disregarded the court-ordered burden of proof.
A magistrate judge recommended habeas relief because an interior immigration arrest was governed by § 1226(a) and re-detention without a hearing violated due process.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review.
The Court screened the FAC under 28 U.S.C.
Warrantless immigration arrest required immediate release.
Parole revocation without notice or hearing violated due process.
Unexplained re-detention after parole violated due process.
Habeas petition denied as premature under Zadvydas.
Handcuffed detainee plausibly alleged excessive force.
Re-detention after humanitarian parole violated due process.
The Amended Complaint’s generic, non-specific allegations are wholly insufficient. Plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish Popa is unavailing. They just say their allegations are different from Popa without identifying any allegations identifying what specific information was allegedly shared
This document is a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. It grants in forma pauperis status but only recommends dismissal; the assigned district judge retains the final decision after the objection period.
This document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final judgment. Objections were due within seven days of service.
This document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the petition. Because an earlier district-court order already required a bond hearing, the recommendation called for no additional relief.