Ericka Lass De La Mont Diaz v. Randy Tate, et al.

De La Mont Diaz v. Tate · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division · April 9, 2026 · No. 4:26-CV-02638

Summary

The court grants in part Ericka Lass De La Mont Diaz’s habeas petition and denies the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. It holds that her re-detention after release on recognizance, without a pre-deprivation hearing or proof of changed individual circumstances, violated her Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The court orders her release within 48 hours and restricts any future re-detention or additional release conditions absent a hearing before an immigration judge.

Holdings

  1. The arbitrary revocation of Petitioner's prior release on recognizance and her re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing or proof of changed individual circumstances violated her Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.
  2. The missed electronic CART check-in could not constitutionally justify Petitioner's re-detention on the undisputed facts because she attended the relevant in-person ICE check-in and the Government did not contend that the missed electronic check-in was the basis for detention.
  3. The court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner within 48 hours under the terms of her prior release order and prohibited re-detention or additional release conditions during the removal proceedings absent a hearing before an immigration judge at which the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that she is a flight risk or danger to the community, or that new conditions are necessary.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether ICE violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights by arbitrarily revoking her prior release on recognizance and re-detaining her without a pre-deprivation hearing or proof of changed individual circumstances.
  2. Whether the court needed to decide whether Petitioner's continued mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) violated substantive due process.
  3. What relief was appropriate for the procedural due process violation.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (9)

  • Betancourth v. Tate, et al., 2026 WL 638482 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2026)(followed)
  • Perea-Berrio v. Tate, et al., 2026 WL 709481 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2026)(followed)
  • Alvarez Rico v. Noem, et al., 2026 WL 522322 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026)(followed)
  • Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026)(applied)
  • Rodriguez v. Frink, 2026 WL 709487 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2026)(followed)
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001)(quoted)
  • Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 529 (2003)(discussed)
  • Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4 (2003)(rejected_argument_based_on)
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020)(rejected_argument_based_on)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…