(HC) C.V. v. Chestnut

Aug 5, 2026
1:26-cv-02326

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner proceeds in this petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 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 6, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. (Doc. No. 15.) On July 12, 2026, Respondents filed objections to the findings and recommendations, merely stating that they generally object “for the reasons stated in [their] prior pleadings.” (Doc. No. 16.) However, those arguments were addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned in other cases. Specifically, this court has found that due process supports providing a bond hearing to a noncitizen subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the detention has become prolonged and an extended period of time has elapsed since the noncitizen‘s previous bond hearing. See J.R.M.J. v. Minga Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01567-DC-SCR, 2026 WL 1948264 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2026) (granting habeas petition and ordering a bond hearing for a noncitizen detained without a bond hearing for over six months pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 pending resolution of a withholding-only appeal of a reinstated removal order); Nasar v. Warden of Cal. City Detention Ctr., No. 2:26-cv-00433-DC-AC, 2026 WL 731160 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026) (granting subsequent bond hearing for noncitizen subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) where nine months had elapsed since prior bond hearing).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court will grant Petitioner‘s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) on due process grounds.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

  1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 6, 2026 (Doc. No. 15), are ADOPTED;
  2. Petitioner Pedro C.V. (A-216-218-959)‘s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED as follows:
    1. Within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing at which the government shall bear the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is either a flight risk or risk to community safety such that Petitioner‘s continued immigration detention is justified;
    1. If Petitioner is not provided a bond hearing within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order, he shall be released from Respondents’ custody;
  2. Petitioner‘s motion (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED as having been rendered moot by this order;
  3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California City Detention Facility; and
  4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2026

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Notes

1
Because the court is granting the petition on the due process claim (Doc. No. 1 at 35-40), the court need not address any additional grounds raised in the petition. See N.K. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00292-KES-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 130345, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (granting habeas petition as to the second count of the petition and not addressing other counts because the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought based on the court‘s ruling as to that second count); Constantinovici v. Bondi, No. 3:25-cv-02405-RBM-AHG, 2025 WL 2898985, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) (granting habeas petition based on due process claim and “declin[ing] to address the remaining grounds in the Petition for seeking release“).