(HC) Adayisso v. Warden

Aug 5, 2026
1:26-cv-02369

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 17)

Petitioner filed an amended application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 15, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. (ECF No. 17.) Respondents filed objections to the findings and recommendations, merely stating that they objected “for the reasons stated in the Respondents’ answer to the petition.” (ECF No. 19.) However, in those objections, Respondents merely state that they object “for the same reasons advanced in Respondents’ earlier filings.” Id. Those arguments were addressed by the magistrate judge and have already been rejected by this court. See M.M. v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-00813-DC-AC, 2026 WL 604200 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2026) (granting temporary restraining order and ordering bond hearing before an immigration judge for petitioner who had not received any such hearing during approximately sixteen months of detention pursuant to § 1225(b)); Nasar v. Warden, No. 2:26-cv-00433-DC-AC, 2026 WL 731160 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026) (granting temporary restraining order and ordering a second bond hearing before an immigration judge for petitioner where nine months had elapsed since petitioner was detained pursuant to § 1225(b) and had received such a hearing). Thus, Respondents’ objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge‘s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge‘s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

  1. The findings and recommendations filed July 15, 2026 (ECF No. 17), are ADOPTED;
  2. Petitioner Afiyo Adayisso‘s (A-221-042-554) amended application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED;
  3. Respondents are ordered to provide Petitioner a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order, at which the government bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is either a flight risk or danger to the community to justify her continued detention;
  4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on the California City Detention Facility; and
  5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2026

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge