Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Odson Laguerre, an immigration detainee proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 13, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the petition be granted. The parties were served and told that objections were due within seven days and that failing to object could waive their rights.
Respondent filed a timely objection, but it stated only that it objected for the reasons given in its opposition and subsequent response to the petition. In those earlier filings, respondent had argued that petitioner was paroled into the United States and therefore remained subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The district judge observed that respondent did not otherwise meaningfully address the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. The order does not restate the magistrate judge's reasoning, which is in a separate document not provided here, so this order does not describe the specific basis for finding the detention unlawful.
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing the matter de novo under § 636(b)(1), the court concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. It adopted them in full and granted the petition. The court did not accept respondent's position that mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) foreclosed a bond hearing, although the order does not explain why in its own words.
As relief, the court ordered respondents to provide a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker within seven days. The hearing must comply with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), so the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denying bond. The immigration judge should also consider petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release if he is found neither a danger nor so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond.
Respondents must immediately give petitioner a copy of the order and 72 hours' notice of the hearing in a language he can understand. Petitioner may be represented by an attorney, and respondents may extend the deadline at his request so he can retain one; if he does, the attorney must receive the same notice. The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, close the case, enter judgment for petitioner, and serve the facility with the order.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief by ordering a bond hearing within seven days; it did not order petitioner's release, and the outcome of the hearing is left to the immigration judge.
- At the hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community before bond may be denied.
- The immigration judge should consider petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release if he is not found to be a danger or an extreme flight risk.
- Petitioner is entitled to 72 hours' notice in a language he understands and may have counsel, and the deadline may be extended at his request so he can obtain an attorney.
- An objection that only referred back to earlier briefing, without engaging the magistrate judge's findings, did not persuade the court on de novo review.
Why It Matters
This is a short district court order, not a published opinion, and it carries no binding precedential weight beyond this case. Its value lies in showing how an Eastern District of California judge handled a respondent's argument that a paroled petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A): the court nonetheless required a Singh-compliant bond hearing with the burden placed on the government by clear and convincing evidence.
Because the order adopts the magistrate judge's analysis without restating it, readers should consult the findings and recommendations (Doc. 15) for the reasoning on the statutory and constitutional questions. The order resolves only the habeas petition; the result of the bond hearing, any later detention decision, and any appeal by respondent remain open. Entry of judgment and closure of the case mean that further relief would require new proceedings.