Jose Natividad Flores Jimenez came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident at age four, from Mexico. He has been convicted of multiple offenses, including inflicting corporal punishment on his partner, violating a protective order, attempted robbery, and second-degree auto burglary. While in state custody for his last conviction, he was diagnosed with various mental illnesses and an intellectual disability. After completing his state sentence, he was transferred into immigration custody in November 2022 and has since been held at detention facilities in California — first at Golden State Annex and, after September 2025, at the California City detention facility. The Department of Homeland Security charged him as removable under Sections 237(a)(2)(iii) and 237(a)(2)(E)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. An immigration judge found him subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and, separately, incompetent to represent himself, leading to appointment of a qualified representative under Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder.
Flores Jimenez received one bond hearing, on June 13, 2023, at which the immigration judge found the government had shown by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a danger to the community based on his criminal record — which included assaultive offenses and driving under the influence offenses — and the span of his criminal history, including the recency of his last offense. No further custody redetermination followed. His removal claims were denied twice, the Board of Immigration Appeals remanded once and then affirmed, and as of the order's date his appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit, which granted a stay of removal on June 16, 2025.
With approximately 41 months of detention and more than 34 months elapsed since his only bond hearing, the Eastern District of California converted his motion for a temporary restraining order to a motion for a preliminary injunction and granted it, ordering a new bond hearing within 21 days. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test because Flores Jimenez was seeking an additional, not initial, bond hearing. All three Mathews factors favored him: his liberty interest is substantial and he has no statutory mechanism under § 1226(c) to seek further review; changed circumstances — including petitioner's submission that he has been sober for four years and has received mental-health treatment, as well as the growing remoteness of his offenses — create meaningful risk that continued detention without a hearing is erroneous; and the government's interest in forgoing a bond hearing is low given that such hearings are routine and minimally costly.
The court held that the likely procedural due process violation itself constitutes irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest both favor the injunction. The government's only opposition on remedy was that Flores Jimenez's detention is finite because his Ninth Circuit appeal will eventually conclude — an argument the court rejected as insufficient to defeat the injunction.
The order directs respondents to hold a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 21 days, at which the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence of danger or flight risk, or release Flores Jimenez under appropriate supervision conditions. The court declined to reach his substantive due process claim — which concerns allegedly punitive and deteriorating conditions at the California City detention facility — holding it in abeyance pending the outcome of the bond hearing. The Rule 65(c) security requirement was waived.