legal-news

Detainee Challenges ICE Custody at California's Golden State Annex Facility

Active Opinion issued Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Ilias Dzhatdoev filed a habeas corpus petition against the warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, an immigration detention center in California operated under contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The case almost certainly challenges the legality of civil immigration detention, either as prolonged pre-removal detention or as a challenge to a removal order. No court, docket, or factual record is available beyond the title. Detention facility habeas petitions in the Ninth Circuit often turn on whether detention has become unreasonably prolonged pending removal.

Latest development

/opinion/10845313/ilias-dzhatdoev-v-warden-of-the-golden-state-annex-detention-facility-et/

Opinion · April 20, 2026

The court issued a written opinion.

Key Issues

  • Habeas corpus challenge to immigration detention
  • Prolonged pre-removal detention under Zadvydas v. Davis
  • ICE detention conditions or legal authority
  • Ninth Circuit habeas jurisdiction
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 1 hour, 59 minutes ago

A federal court issued a written opinion on April 20, 2026, in the habeas case of Ilias Dzhatdoev against the warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility. The docket number and assigned judge are not yet confirmed in available records, but the case is active and the opinion is the most significant development on file.

Dzhatdoev is a detainee held at Golden State Annex, a private immigration detention facility in McFarland, California operated under contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His petition challenges the legality of his detention. The warden is named as the respondent in the custodial capacity standard for habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241.

The April 20 opinion is the case's anchor event. Without the full text confirmed, the precise ruling — whether the court granted relief, denied the petition, or resolved a procedural question — is not yet established in available records. What is clear is that the court reached the merits or a dispositive procedural question, because it issued a written opinion rather than a summary order.

The case fits a pattern of § 2241 immigration detention challenges that have moved through federal courts in the Central and Eastern Districts of California since 2020, many contesting prolonged detention without a bond hearing. If Dzhatdoev's petition follows that pattern, the core question is whether continued detention without individualized review violates due process under the Fifth Amendment.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
menu_book
Opinion 2 hours ago
The court issued a written opinion.
receipt_long Source expand_more

/opinion/10845313/ilias-dzhatdoev-v-warden-of-the-golden-state-annex-detention-facility-et/

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
menu_book
Opinion April 20, 2026

/opinion/10845313/ilias-dzhatdoev-v-warden-of-the-golden-state-annex-detention-facility-et/

The court issued a written opinion.

Advertisement
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

0 outlets · 0 articles

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

21 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.