(HC) Fernandez Puerto v. Warden of California City Detention Facility

Sep 1, 2026
1:26-cv-06445

ORDER

Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee who filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 August 26, 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 three days. (ECF No. 7.) Respondent filed objections to the findings and recommendations for the reasons indicated in their prior responsive pleading. (ECF No. 8.)

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

  1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 7) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
  2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.
  3. Respondent is ordered to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner (A# 206-887-688) from their custody under the conditions of supervision in place at the time of his re-arrest in April 2026 and to return all of Petitioner‘s documents and possessions at the time of release. Respondent shall file a notice of compliance with this provision of the Court‘s Order by September 4, 2026.
  4. Respondent is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with statutory and constitutional protections, including a minimum of seven-days’ notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral factfinder where Respondents show by clear and convincing evidence that the government‘s interest in protecting the public or ensuring Petitioner appears at future immigration proceedings outweighs Petitioner‘s constitutionally protected interest in remaining free from detention such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that risk. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001); Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (2017). At any such hearing, Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present.
  5. This Order does not address the circumstances in which Respondent may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal.
  6. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the California City Detention Facility.
  7. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and close this case.

///

///

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 31, 2026

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notes

1
The Court omits Petitioner‘s full name to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum Re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf.