(HC) Forbes v. Warden, Tonya Andrews

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
ADADAGRO VERNON FORBES
(A-221-498-197),
Petitioner,
v.
TONYA ANDREWS, Warden of the
Golden State Annex, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:26-cv-06107 TLN-CSK
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner Adadagro Vernon Forbes (A-221-498-197), a native and citizen of the Bahamas
who is proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 Petitioner entered the United States on a B2 visitor visa, and overstayed his
visa. On April 7, 2026, petitioner was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”). This habeas action concerns petitioner’s detention. For the reasons that follow, the
Court recommends denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen and native of the Bahamas, who was admitted to the United States
on or around September 12, 2018 on a B2 nonimmigrant visa as a visitor for pleasure. (ECF No.
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72,
and Local Rule 302(c)(17).
Case 1:26-cv-06107-TLN-CSK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 5

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
1 at 6; ECF No. 8 at 1.) The visa authorized petitioner to remain in the United States until March
11, 2019, but petitioner overstayed his visa. (ECF No. 8 at 1.)
On March 31, 2026, petitioner was arrested by local law enforcement in Florida and
charged with battery. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) On April 1, 2026, petitioner was arraigned in state court
on his criminal charge and ordered release by the state court judge. (Id.) Local law enforcement
contacted ICE on April 1, 2026, and the Department of Homeland Security conducted an initial
custody determination of petitioner. (See id.; ECF No. 8-2 at 1-2.) On April 7, 2026, petitioner
was detained by ICE after his release by local law enforcement. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) On May 22,
2026, petitioner’s state court criminal case was dismissed; petitioner has no criminal history. (Id.)
Petitioner has been transferred to multiple immigration detention facilities since his April 2026
detention. (Id.)
Petitioner requested a custody redetermination (bond) hearing before an immigration
judge, and this hearing was scheduled for August 17, 2026. (ECF No. 8 at 1-2; ECF No. 8-4.)
Petitioner does not dispute this, but argues that the hearing should have been scheduled earlier.
(ECF No. 10.)
On August 3, 2026, petitioner filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion to
appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) On August 4, 2026, the district judge referred the matter to the
assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (ECF No. 5.) On August 12, 2026,
respondents timely filed an opposition to the petition, and on August 21, 2026, petitioner timely
filed a reply.2 (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) Briefing is now complete. (See Docket.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
The Constitution guarantees the availability of the writ of habeas corpus “to every
individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)
(citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in
custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure
release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas
2 	Petitioner’s reply is signed and dated August 17, 2026. (ECF No. 10 at 3.)
Case 1:26-cv-06107-TLN-CSK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 5

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
corpus may be granted to a petitioner who demonstrates that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has
served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its
protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). A district court’s
habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Generally, noncitizens are subject to civil immigration detention only if the noncitizen
presents a risk of flight or danger to the community. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (holding that
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) does not authorize indefinite detention).
Petitioner challenges his detention based on the violation of the Fifth Amendment
procedural due process clause. (See ECF No. 1.) Respondents agree that petitioner is detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 8 at 1, 3.) Respondents argue that because petitioner
was already scheduled to receive a custody redetermination (bond) hearing before an immigration
judge, petitioner has received the process due. (Id. at 3; ECF No. 8-4.) The Court agrees with
respondents.
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) “provides the general process for arresting and detaining [noncitizens]
who are present in the United States and eligible for removal.” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53
F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022). Under § 1226(a), the government makes an initial custody
determination, and the noncitizen will be released upon a showing “to the satisfaction of the
officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the [noncitizen]
is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1196 (citing 8 C.F.R.
§ 236.1(c)(8)). Section 1226(a) provides “an initial bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker,
the opportunity to be represented by counsel and to present evidence, the right to appeal, and the
right to seek a new hearing when circumstances materially change.” Id. at 1202. Therefore, “[i]f
the noncitizen is detained under section 1226(a), she is entitled to a bond hearing.” Labrador-
Prato v. Noem, 2025 WL 3458802, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (citing Jennings v. Rodriguez,
583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018)).
Case 1:26-cv-06107-TLN-CSK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 5

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
The record before the Court also indicates that § 1226(a) procedures were followed. DHS
made the initial custody determination on April 1, 2026, and notice of its determination was
provided to petitioner. (ECF No. 8-2 at 1-2.) Petitioner requested a custody redetermination
hearing before an immigration, the request was granted, and petitioner was scheduled to receive a
custody redetermination hearing on August 17, 2026.3
IV. 	MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) There currently exists
no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105
F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the court can appoint counsel at any
stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254
Cases. The Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel,
and petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied without prejudice.
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be denied.
2. 	The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of respondents and close
this case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
of the date of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the
court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be
filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
3 	The record before the court does not indicate the result of the custody redetermination hearing.
The Court notes that the ICE Online Detainee Locator does not return a result for petitioner,
which may indicate that petitioner has been released. See https://locator.ice.gov/odls/.
Case 1:26-cv-06107-TLN-CSK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 5

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
5
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: October 12, 2026
csk/forb.6107.26.frs
Case 1:26-cv-06107-TLN-CSK Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 5