E.R. v. Mullin: A Custody Record Did Not Substitute for an Answer to the Habeas Claim

E.R. v. Mullin, No. 5:26-cv-05079-DTB (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2026), ECF No. 13, granted habeas relief based on a particular briefing failure. The government filed an I-213 after a further court direction but did not answer the procedural due-process claim. The court treated that claim as unrefuted and ordered immediate release; it did not announce a general default rule for immigration detention cases.

The petition challenged renewed detention after community supervision

The petition described a long residence in the United States, a TPS application, prior immigration check-ins, and detention in April 2026. The order cautioned that its background account came primarily from the petition. A TPS application in that account must not be described as a current TPS grant. Nor should the allegations be converted into findings beyond what the court actually decided. E.R., slip op. at 2–4.

The asserted constitutional injury concerned detention without the process allegedly required before taking away the petitioner’s prior liberty. The court had authority to address the custody petition; the proceeding did not adjudicate the ultimate merits of an immigration benefits application.

The ordered response never became a substantive defense

The petition was filed September 2. The government’s answer was due September 10. After the petitioner reported the absence of an answer, the court asked the government to advise whether it intended to appear and answer, and requested the I-213 if it would not do so. The government filed that document on September 16 but did not present a merits answer. The petitioner replied to the record. Id. at 1–2, 7–8.

This distinction is central: The government did file a document. The defect was not a literally empty docket; it was the failure to contest the procedural claim through the required response. Describing the case as one in which no evidence was filed would misstate the opinion.

The court recited due-process principles without resolving every merits question

The order discussed the three factors from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976): The private interest affected; the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest under existing procedures and the probable value of additional safeguards; and the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens of additional procedures. E.R., slip op. at 5–6.

But the disposition did not depend on a fully adversarial determination of every aspect of that balance. The court invoked party-presentation principles and the government’s failure to meet its response burden under 28 U.S.C. section 2243. It expressly stated that it need not agree with the merits of the petitioner’s claims in all respects to recognize that the detention claim remained unrefuted. Id. at 7–8.

That reasoning limits the order’s persuasive reach. It should not be cited as establishing every allegation, eliminating all detention authority, or guaranteeing release whenever the government submits a late or incomplete paper.

The operative order addressed release and implementation

The court ordered immediate release under the same prior conditions, if any, return of the petitioner’s property, and a status report within two business days. It directed that any later detention comply with applicable statutes and regulations. Id. at 8–9. Those directions concern the individual petitioner; they do not adjudicate a future arrest on facts not before the court.

The source establishes what was ordered on September 18. It does not independently verify actual release, compliance, or the absence of later proceedings. As an individual C.D. Cal. order, it is persuasive rather than binding circuit precedent. Its practical contribution is an exact account of how the court treated an unaddressed procedural claim despite receiving a custody record.

What this means for a family reading the docket

The quotation identifies the unanswered claim on which the court acted. A reader should preserve the ordered briefing sequence and the government’s actual submission, not replace them with a shorthand claim of automatic default. The order’s implementation provisions are separately important: Counsel must distinguish a direction to release from proof of compliance and review any later stay or modification.

The decision states:

“his claim that his detention is without lawful authority is unrefuted by Respondents”

E.R., slip op. at 8.

Questions about this issue

Did the government file nothing at all?

No. It filed an I-213; the court found that it did not substantively answer the habeas claim.

Did the court resolve every merits issue under Mathews?

No. It recited the framework but expressly limited its decision in light of the unrefuted claim and the government’s litigation conduct.

What relief was ordered?

Immediate release under prior conditions if any, return of property, an implementation report, and compliance with applicable law before future detention.

Continue with The Government Filed an I-213 but No Habeas Answer: Read the Briefing Record.

Read the primary decision: E.R., September 18, 2026 order (ECF 13) (PDF).