Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGOBERTO MADRID GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
-v-
KRISTI NOEM and OFFICER MONTGOMERY,
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
26-CV-1290
ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Rigoberto Madrid Gonzalez is presently detained by Respondents at
the Nassau County Jail (“NCJ”) in East Meadow, New York. 	He is a citizen of El
Salvador who has resided in the United States since 1996. Petitioner was taken into
Respondents’ custody on March 4, 2026.
On March 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the
“Petition”), ECF No. 1, alleging that his detention violates his constitutional and
statutory rights, and seeking entry of an order directing his immediate release from
detention.
On 	March 	5, 	2026, 	the 	Court 	issued 	an 	Order, 	ECF 	No. 	4, 	directing
Respondents to file, by 4:00 PM on March 6, 2026, a submission (1) providing certain
information about Petitioner and his circumstances, (2) indicating the statutory
provision under which they assert the authority to detain Petitioner, and (3)
addressing whether there is any basis to distinguish the asserted grounds for
detention from the Court’s decision in Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM),
Case 2:26-cv-01290-NRM Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025), or from any other prior decisions issued by
the undersigned in this area of law. The Court further directed that, if Respondents
asserted no basis to distinguish this Petition from the Court’s analysis in Hyppolite
or another decision of this Court, the submission could take the form of a letter so
stating, and indicating whether Respondents oppose issuance of the writ, subject to
preservation of Respondents’ arguments for appeal. 	Finally, the Court’s March 5,
2026 Order directed Respondents, in the event they took the position that this case
is distinguishable from Hyppolite, to respond to the Petition and to show cause as to
why it should not be granted on or before March 8, 2026 at 4:00 PM; to further affirm
that they have provided the Court with all facts material to Petitioner’s claims and
Respondents’ opposition to those claims; and to attach all exhibits related to those
facts.
Respondents filed a submission on March 6, 2026. 	ECF No. 5. 	In their
response, Respondents did not attach any exhibits relating to the circumstances
under which Petitioner was detained, nor their justification for detaining him.
Instead, Respondents have averred that they are presently detaining Petitioner
under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). ECF No. 5 at
1.1 Respondents state that further submissions or a hearing are not necessary at this
time to adjudicate the questions presented in this petition if the Court adheres to its
reasoning in Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y.
Oct. 6, 2025), which would control the outcome in this case. Id. at 1, 3. In its decision
1 References to page numbers use ECF pagination.
Case 2:26-cv-01290-NRM Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
in Hyppolite, this Court previously considered and rejected Respondents’ claims as to
the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to persons whom Respondents agree are
similarly situated to Mr. Madrid Gonzalez.
Petitioner has alleged, and Respondents do not dispute, that Respondents did
not provide him with notice and an individualized bond hearing, which this Court
found in Hyppolite is required for persons similarly situated to Petitioner.
Accordingly, as it did in Hyppolite, the Court finds that Petitioner has
established that his detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due
process, because Petitioner has lived in the United States for approximately thirty
years 	and 	is 	therefore 	entitled 	to 	an 	individualized 	bond 	hearing 	under 	the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Hyppolite v. Noem, 25 CV
4303 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *12–16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025); see also, e.g.,
Artiga v. Genalo, No. 25 CV 5208 (OEM), 2025 WL 2829434, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5,
2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 498–99 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025);
Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25 CV 05240 (TMC), 2025 WL 2782499, at *16–26 (W.D.
Wash. Sep. 30, 2025); Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25 CV 06924 (EMC), 2025 WL
2637503, at *6–13 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25 CV 3682,
2025 WL 2802947, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (collecting cases). 	Similarly, the
Court finds that Petitioner has established that the mandatory detention provisions
of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and (b)(2) relied upon by Respondents to justify the legality
of Petitioner’s detention are inapplicable here, because Petitioner has been living
continuously in the United States and is not “seeking admission” under Section 1225.
Case 2:26-cv-01290-NRM Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The Court hereby incorporates by reference its earlier analysis of these issues
in Hyppolite, 2025 WL 2829511, at *6–16. Given that neither the Second Circuit nor
the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this precise question, the Court
adheres to the reasoning of its earlier decision and the near-unanimous conclusion
reached by hundreds of other district courts nationwide who have considered the
issue to date. 	Cf. Resp., ECF No. 5 at 2 n.2 (citing the decisions of courts adopting
Respondents’ analysis).
The Court also finds that Petitioner has established that his detention without
a 	bond 	hearing 	violates 	his 	right 	to 	procedural 	due 	process 	under 	the 	Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978
F.3d 842, 851 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that “the most significant liberty interest”
recognized under the Constitution is “the interest in being free from imprisonment”).
The Court has weighed the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976),
which applies when courts in the Second Circuit are called upon to determine “the
adequacy 	of 	process 	in 	the 	context 	of 	civil 	immigration 	confinement.” 	Munoz
Materano v. Artera, No. 25 CV 6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *12 (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 12,
2025). Having considered (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official
action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures
used; and (3) the government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative
burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail, see Mathews, 424
U.S. at 335, the Court finds that the balance of interests weighs heavily in Petitioner’s
favor, and that granting the writ is an appropriate remedy for the deprivation of his
Case 2:26-cv-01290-NRM Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
right to procedural due process.
It is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is GRANTED. 	It is further ORDERED that Respondents must release
Petitioner from custody no later than 10:00 AM on Saturday, March 7, 2026.
In light of the fact that Petitioner is presently being held at NCJ in East
Meadow, New York, it is further ORDERED that counsel for Respondents shall
keep Petitioner’s counsel informed regarding the timing, location, and
manner of Petitioner’s release from custody, so that counsel may be present or
arrange to have a family member or other representative present at the time of
Petitioner’s release.
Respondents, through counsel, shall file a letter on the docket no later
than 1:00 PM on that same date (Saturday, March 7, 2026), confirming that
Petitioner has been released from custody, and shall send a courtesy copy of that
letter by electronic mail to morrison_chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov and to Petitioner’s
counsel at the email address listed in the Petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from re-
detaining Petitioner, absent prior authorization of this Court and without notice and
an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, at which Respondents
will bear the burden of showing that his detention is authorized under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a).
The Court’s earlier order scheduling a hearing for March 12, 2026 is hereby
Case 2:26-cv-01290-NRM Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
vacated in light of the Court’s resolution of the merits of the Petition. 	Petitioner’s
counsel may submit an application for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act within the time provided by the Local Rules.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2026 	/s/ Nina R. Morrison
Brooklyn, New York 	Nina R. Morrison
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-01290-NRM Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>