Bounlay Phommavongsa v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Bounlay Phommavongsa v. Christopher Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01852-JLT-CDB (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · January 15, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-01852-JLT-CDB (HC)

Summary

These Findings and Recommendations address Bounlay Phommavongsa’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas action challenging his immigration detention. The court recommends granting the motion, concluding that prudential exhaustion should be waived and that Petitioner has shown a likelihood of success on an as-applied due process challenge to his prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The requested relief includes release under appropriate supervision and an injunction against removal while the habeas petition is pending.

Holdings

  1. The prudential exhaustion requirement should be waived because administrative remedies would be futile where respondents maintained that petitioner was subject to mandatory detention and petitioner had no meaningful administrative avenue for release, while continued detention caused irreparable harm.
  2. Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of success on his as-applied procedural due process claim because his lengthy, compliant release under an order of supervision created a protected liberty interest, and re-detention without a bond or custody-redetermination hearing presented a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation.
  3. Petitioner satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief because he was likely to succeed on his procedural due process claim, continued detention constituted likely irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether prudential exhaustion of administrative remedies should be waived because pursuing those remedies would be futile and continued detention would cause irreparable harm.
  2. Whether petitioner was likely to succeed on an as-applied procedural due process challenge to his prolonged immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without a bond or custody-redetermination hearing.
  3. Whether petitioner satisfied the Winter factors for a preliminary injunction requiring immediate release and limiting any renewed detention absent a bond hearing or material change in circumstances.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (56)

  • Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025)(followed)
  • L. v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 197-98 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 24 (2008)(followed)
  • Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)(followed)
  • Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015)(followed)
  • Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-12 (1982)(followed)
  • Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Simon v. City & County of San Francisco, 135 F.4th 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2025)(followed)
  • Env't Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Carlson, 968 F.3d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 56.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…