1

2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 JORGE ESTUARDO MARIN, Case No. 1:25-cv-01422-SAB-HC

11 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

12 v. ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 13 TONYA ANDREWS, et al., TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 14 Respondents.

15 16 Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a 17 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The parties have consented to 18 the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 6, 9, 10.) 19 On October 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion 20 for temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) In the petition, Petitioner raises the 21 following claims for relief: (1) the erroneous application of

(b)(2) to Petitioner 22 unlawfully mandates his continued detention and violates the Immigration and Nationality Act; 23 (2) Petitioner’s re-detention after being released on bond in 2012 without a pre-deprivation 24 hearing violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights; and (3) detention of Petitioner without 25 a bond redetermination hearing to determine whether he is a flight risk or danger to others also 26 violates his right to due process. (ECF No. 1 at 14–16.) The motion for TRO discusses only the 27 issue of the erroneous application of

(b)(2) to Petitioner, as does Respondents’ opposition. (ECF Nos. 2, 11.) 1 Upon review of the petition, it appears that an order of removal has been issued by an 2 | immigration judge. (ECF No. 1 at 7; ECF No. 1-1 at 31.) An intricate statutory scheme governs 3 | the detention of noncitizens during removal proceedings and after a final removal order is issued. 4 “Where an alien falls within this statutory scheme can affect whether his detention is mandatory 5 | or discretionary, as well as the kind of review process available to him if he wishes to contest the 6 | necessity of his detention.” Prieto-Romero v. Clark,

(9th Cir. 2008). “Four 7 | statutes grant the Government authority to detain noncitizens who have been placed in removal 8 | proceedings”: 8 U.S.C. $$ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a). Avilez v. Garland,

| 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2023). “Section 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a final order of 10 | removal.”

. 11 The Court finds that supplemental briefing on whether

(a), rather than 12 | § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a), is applicable to Petitioner would be helpful in this matter. 13 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 14 1. The parties SHALL FILE supplemental briefs addressing the issue set forth above on or 15 before Monday, November 10, 2025. 16 2. A hearing on the motion for TRO will be held on Thursday, November 13, at 3:00 p.m. in 17 Courtroom 9 before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.! 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf Se 20 | Dated: _November 5, 2025 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | | The parties may request permission from the Court to appear by video conference or telephone.