(HC) Regalado v. Vitello

Sep 1, 2026
1:26-cv-02968

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On July 10, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. ECF No. 22. Respondents filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 23. In their objections, Respondents merely state that they object “for the same reasons advanced in Respondents’ earlier filing.” Id. However, those arguments were addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned in this case and other cases. See Calvillo v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00569-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 253627 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2026) (“[W]hile the court finds that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her re-detention without a bond hearing violated her right to due process, the court will order that the proper remedy for this violation is that Petitioner receive a post-deprivation bond hearing in which Respondents must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the alleged changed circumstances demonstrate that Petitioner is either a flight risk or threat to public safety, such that her detention is justified.“). Thus, Respondents’ objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.

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 as follows:

  1. The findings and recommendations filed July 10, 2026, ECF No. 22, are ADOPTED;
  2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, is DENIED;
  3. Petitioner‘s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED as Petitioner‘s detention violates due process;
  4. Petitioner‘s motion to supplement the record, ECF No. 21, is DENIED AS MOOT; and
  5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2026

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge