Riego v. Warden Scott

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed a § 2241 habeas petition challenging prolonged mandatory immigration detention without an individualized bond hearing. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and concluded that, although the petitioner’s interest in freedom from prolonged detention was substantial, the existing procedural protections and the government’s interests supported continued detention. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

Holdings

1. Detention under § 1226(c) is not facially unconstitutional merely because it continues beyond six months without an individualized bond hearing.
2. Riego's approximately twenty-two months of detention did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the detention remained connected to ongoing removal proceedings and he received meaningful process, including a scheduled bond hearing that he withdrew and review of his applications and removal order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) is facially unconstitutional when it exceeds six months without an individualized bond hearing.
2. Whether Riego's approximately twenty-two months of detention without an individualized bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights.
3. Whether the process Riego received, including a scheduled bond hearing that he withdrew and review of his applications for immigration relief, satisfied due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test.

Disposition

dismissed