Arostegui Castellon v. Kaiser

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants a preliminary injunction in a habeas action brought by Maidel Arostegui Castellon, an immigration detainee who had previously been released on parole and was later arrested by ICE. The court concludes that she is entitled to judicial review of the termination of her parole and that due process requires a hearing before her bond is revoked. The order converts her motion for a temporary restraining order into a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Holdings

1. The court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Petitioner's claim that her custody violated the Constitution and to review the termination of her parole because no removal order was at issue and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) did not bar review of the challenged detention.
2. Petitioner satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction because she demonstrated a likelihood of success on her procedural due process claim, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.
3. Due process required the government to provide Petitioner with pre-deprivation notice describing the changed circumstances necessitating arrest and detention, followed by a timely hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, before re-arresting or re-detaining her after her prolonged release.
4. At any future hearing concerning Petitioner's re-detention, the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that she poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner must be permitted to have counsel present.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Petitioner's detention and the termination of her parole.
2. Whether Petitioner was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief against her detention and re-detention.
3. Whether due process required pre-deprivation notice and a timely hearing before the government could revoke Petitioner's release and re-detain her.
4. Whether the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence at such a hearing that re-detention is necessary because Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
5. Whether Petitioner could be released without additional restrictions and whether the government could re-arrest or re-detain her absent constitutionally adequate procedures.

Disposition

other