Goustave Jocelin v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Jocelin v. Chestnut · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · December 17, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-01500-KES-SAB-HC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition by a Haitian citizen detained while holding Temporary Protected Status. The magistrate judge recommends granting the habeas petition because the respondents did not oppose the merits, while denying the petitioner’s request for a blanket injunction against future detention and denying the temporary restraining order as moot. The recommendation concludes that 8 C.F.R. § 244.18(d) permits detention pending removal proceedings in specified circumstances involving TPS holders.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Stanley A. Boone
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
December 17, 2025
Docket number
1:25-cv-01500-KES-SAB-HC
Procedural posture
Petitioner sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention while holding Temporary Protected Status. The magistrate judge recommends granting the habeas petition on the merits, denying the requested blanket injunction against future detention, and denying the temporary restraining order as moot.
Standard of review
The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations for de novo review by the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The statutory and regulatory issues were analyzed under the plain-meaning rule.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

temporary protected statusimmigration detentionfederal habeas corpusprocedural due processstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

immigrationfederal habeas corpustemporary protected statusimmigration detentionconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether petitioner's detention while he held Temporary Protected Status violated 8 U.S.C. § 1254a and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
  2. Whether the court should enjoin respondents from detaining petitioner for as long as TPS for Haiti remained in effect and petitioner continued to hold TPS status.
  3. Whether the motion for a temporary restraining order remained viable after petitioner's release from detention.

Holdings

  1. The court recommends granting the habeas petition because respondents did not oppose the merits of petitioner's challenge and his detention was alleged to violate the TPS statute and due process.
  2. The court recommends denying the requested blanket injunction because 8 C.F.R. § 244.18(d) authorizes detention pending removal proceedings when a charging document alleges grounds of deportability or inadmissibility that would have made the person ineligible for TPS.
  3. The court recommends denying the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot because petitioner had been released from detention and voluntarily dismissed the motion.

Key quotations

As Respondents do not oppose the merits of Petitioner’s habeas petition, the Court recommends that the petition be granted. (Discussion section)
Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s request to enjoin Respondents “from further detaining Petitioner so long as TPS for Haiti remains in effect and he continues to hold TPS status” is contrary to law because 8 C.F.R. § 244.18(d) specifically authorizes detention pending removal proceedings (Discussion section)

Factual background

Petitioner, a Haitian citizen, entered the United States with his family in September 2021 and obtained Temporary Protected Status in 2023, with TPS valid through February 3, 2026 as a result of litigation. ICE required him to check in through a phone application and attend in-person check-ins. On October 30, 2025, ICE detained him during a San Francisco check-in, allegedly because he had submitted a required photograph late, without providing further explanation. After counsel notified ICE of the TPS statute's non-detention provision, petitioner filed this action; he was released on November 12, 2025.

Procedural history

Petitioner filed a § 2241 habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order after ICE detained him during an in-person check-in. He was released six days later and voluntarily dismissed the TRO motion as moot. Respondents filed an answer stating that they did not oppose the merits of the habeas petition but opposed the requested blanket injunction; petitioner filed a reply. The matter was referred to the magistrate judge for findings and recommendations subject to district-judge review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Remand instructions

No remand was ordered. The magistrate judge recommended that the assigned district judge grant the habeas petition, deny the requested blanket injunction, and deny the TRO motion as moot, subject to objections and district-judge review.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…