govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03631-0

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
ANGEL DAVID AMAYA GOMEZ, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
WARDEN GOLDEN STATE ANNEX, et 
al., 
Respondents. 
No. 1:26-cv-03631-DC-JDP (HC) 
 
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 
CORPUS AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 
RESTRAINING ORDER 
(Doc. Nos. 1, 3) 
 This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order 
(Doc. No. 3) filed in conjunction with his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his ongoing immigration detention. (Doc. No. 1.) 
This court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the petition. (Doc. No. 1.) 
Specifically, this court has found that the Due Process Clause requires that, in order for the 
government to re-detain a noncitizen who has been previously released on bond or conditional 
parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), the 
government must provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the 
noncitizen’s eligibility for bond must be considered. See Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-
DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) (granting motion for temporary restraining 
order and immediate release of the petitioner based on his likelihood of success on the merits of 
his due process claim); Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
 
(E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (same); D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026) (same); Altin v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00792-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 
309563 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas 
petition as to the petitioner’s due process claim). 
On May 13, 2026, the court issued an order informing the parties that it was considering 
ruling directly on the petition and asking both parties whether they oppose simultaneous 
resolution of the motion for a temporary restraining order and habeas petition. (Doc. No. 8.) The 
court also directed Respondents to address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this 
case that materially distinguish it from this court’s prior orders in Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, 
and D.L.C. (Id.) 
On May 15, 2026, Respondents filed their opposition to Petitioner’s motion for a 
temporary restraining order in which they oppose Petitioner’s motion on the same legal grounds 
as those addressed by the court in the aforementioned cases. (Doc. No. 9.) However, Respondents 
factually distinguish Petitioner’s claim from the aforementioned cases by emphasizing that 
Petitioner was detained by immigration authorities following his arrest for possession of 
marijuana and related offenses. (Id. at 1–2.) Respondents attach Petitioner’s FBI RAP sheet 
showing that on March 20, 2026, Petitioner was arrested for possession of marijuana. (Doc. No. 
9-1.) Respondents argue that it was this arrest that precipitated Petitioner’s immigration detention. 
(Doc. No. 9 at 1–2.) Respondents further indicate that they “do not oppose the Court ruling 
directly on the petition.” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner did not file a Reply, and his time to do so has 
expired. 
Because Respondents have not made any new legal arguments or identified any legal 
issues in this case that would distinguish it from the court’s aforementioned prior decisions, the 
court will grant Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) and petition for 
writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) for the reasons set forth in the court’s order in Altin. However, 
unlike the petitioner in Altin, who had been arrested but not charged with any criminal offenses 
and who was detained by immigration authorities seven months after his release from that arrest, 
here, Petitioner was detained immediately following his arrest and has criminal charges pending 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 3 
 
 
against him. Thus, unlike in Altin, Respondents have provided a non-pretextual changed 
circumstance that may warrant revocation of Petitioner’s prior release. This court has previously 
found that where the government asserts a non-pretextual change in circumstance potentially 
warranting revocation of a non-citizen’s release, the proper remedy for the government’s failure 
to provide the petitioner with a pre-deprivation bond hearing is a post-deprivation bond hearing, 
not immediate release. See Calvillo v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00569-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 253627 
at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2026) (“[W]hile the court finds that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the 
merits of her claim that her re-detention without a bond hearing violated her right to due process, 
the court will order that the proper remedy for this violation is that Petitioner receive a post-
deprivation bond hearing in which Respondents must show, by clear and convincing evidence, 
that the alleged changed circumstances demonstrate that Petitioner is either a flight risk or threat 
to public safety, such that her detention is justified.”). 
Accordingly, 
1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) and motion for a 
temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) are GRANTED as follows: 
a. Within fourteen (14) days, Respondents are ORDERED to provide 
Petitioner Angel David Amaya Gomez (A-213-175-720) a bond hearing 
before an immigration judge at which the government shall bear the burden 
of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is either a 
flight risk or risk to community safety such that his continued immigration 
detention is justified; and 
b. If Respondents fail to provide Petitioner a bond hearing within fourteen 
(14) days, Petitioner shall be immediately released from Respondents’ 
custody on the same terms as his previous release; 
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California 
City Detention Facility; and 
///// 
///// 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 4 
 
 
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this 
case. 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 8, 2026 
 
 
___________________________ 
Dena Coggins 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight