Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Victor Manuel P.O., an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 for findings and recommendations.
On October 9, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 10) which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within seven days. No party filed objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.
The district court reviewed the matter under the standards set forth in Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979), which presumes that any findings of fact are correct, and Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007), which requires de novo review of the magistrate judge's conclusions of law.
The Court’s Holding
The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo, citing Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) and Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court found the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, the court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. The court specified that the petitioner may file a new habeas petition if and when his detention becomes prolonged or there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley on October 22, 2026, and filed on October 23, 2026, in the Eastern District of California under Case No. 1:26-cv-05177-TLN-AC.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full after no objections were filed within the seven-day period.
- The habeas petition was denied without prejudice, preserving the petitioner's right to refile if detention becomes prolonged or removal is no longer significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
- The court applied the standard of review for magistrate judge findings: clear error for factual findings and de novo review for legal conclusions.
- The case was closed following the denial of the petition.
- The without-prejudice denial reflects the court's recognition that immigration detention challenges may become viable again if circumstances change, such as prolonged detention or a diminished likelihood of removal.
Why It Matters
This order reflects the routine procedural posture in immigration habeas cases where a district court adopts a magistrate judge's recommendations after no objections are filed. The without-prejudice denial with specific guidance on when a new petition may be filed provides a clear procedural roadmap for the detainee to challenge prolonged detention in the future, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on the limits of immigration detention.
The order underscores the importance of the magistrate judge referral process under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 in the Eastern District of California, and it demonstrates how district courts apply the dual standard of review—clear error for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions—when no objections are filed. The explicit preservation of the petitioner's right to refile ensures that the denial does not operate as a final adjudication on the merits of any future prolonged detention claim.