Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marco Garcia Solano, a federal immigration detainee held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the California City Immigration Processing Center, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 10, 2026. He filed it together with a motion for a temporary restraining order. On June 23, 2026, the court denied the restraining order motion and referred the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including findings and recommendations on the petition.
On August 28, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the petition be denied. The findings were served on the parties, and Garcia Solano timely filed objections along with a notice of intervening controlling authority. In those filings he argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), amounted to a change in the law that should affect his case. The order does not describe the magistrate judge's reasoning in detail, but it indicates that the immigration judge had earlier denied bond on more than one ground, including a finding that Garcia Solano posed a danger to the community.
The Court’s Holding
Applying 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court conducted a de novo review of the case, including the objections. It concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis, and that the objections gave no basis to reject them. The court acknowledged the argument that Rodriguez Vazquez changed the law, but it found that the objections did not meaningfully address the immigration judge's alternative ground for denying bond: that Garcia Solano was a danger to the community because of a prior DUI conviction and a new DUI charge in 2026.
The court further held that Garcia Solano had not established a basis for habeas relief. It stated that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that he may request a new bond hearing in immigration court upon a showing of changed circumstances, citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e). The order does not analyze the substance of Rodriguez Vazquez, and it does not order release or a new bond hearing.
The court adopted the findings and recommendations in full, denied the petition, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The order is a denial rather than a dismissal with leave to amend, so nothing remains pending in this court.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied the § 2241 petition after de novo review and adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full, closing the case.
- Citing a new Ninth Circuit decision, Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, did not carry the petition because the objections did not meaningfully address the immigration judge's alternative danger-to-the-community ground for denying bond.
- The danger finding rested on a prior DUI conviction and a DUI charge brought in 2026; the charge is an accusation, and the order does not say it has been adjudicated.
- The court stated that Garcia Solano is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and may ask the immigration court for a new bond hearing on a showing of changed circumstances, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e).
- As a short district court order resolving one detainee's petition, it carries no binding precedential weight.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district judge in the Eastern District of California handled objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation in an immigration-detention habeas case. A petitioner who points to a recent appellate decision as a change in the law should still engage each independent ground on which bond was denied; here, the unaddressed danger-to-the-community ground left the court without a basis to grant relief.
The scope is narrow. The court did not decide how Rodriguez Vazquez applies to detainees generally, and it did not foreclose future bond requests: the order leaves open a new bond hearing in immigration court if circumstances change. The 2026 DUI charge is only a charge, and the order does not say how it was resolved. Because the case was closed, any further challenge would have to come through a new filing, an appeal, or a bond request in immigration court.