Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Keylin Carolina Gomez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming Semaia Fereti and others as respondents. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes under case number 5:26-cv-06035-ACCV. The petition challenged the lawfulness of Gomez's immigration detention, though the specific factual grounds for the challenge are detailed in a prior order not included in this document. The docket reflects that the underlying Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was docketed as entry 9, immediately preceding this Entry of Judgment at entry 10.
The Court issued an Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus setting forth its reasons and findings. This Entry of Judgment formalizes that ruling by entering final judgment on the petition without requiring further proceedings. The document reflects the ministerial act of reducing the Court's prior substantive decision to a formal judgment. The docket entry for this document confirms that the case was terminated upon entry of judgment, with the notation 'MD JS-6, Case Terminated' indicating the administrative closure of the matter.
The Entry of Judgment is a one-page document filed on October 23, 2026, bearing the JS-6 designation used by the Central District of California for case-terminating judgments. The document expressly incorporates by reference the reasons and findings set forth in the Court's prior order granting the petition, making clear that the substantive analysis supporting the grant of habeas relief is contained in that earlier order rather than in this judgment entry itself.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 1] and entered judgment in favor of petitioner Keylin Carolina Gomez pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The judgment was entered without requiring any further proceedings, making the Court's prior order granting the petition final and enforceable. The Entry of Judgment incorporates by reference the reasons and findings set forth in the Court's prior order, which was docketed as entry 9 in this action.
Magistrate Judge Angela C. C. Viramontes signed the judgment on October 23, 2026. The document contains a clerical inconsistency, referencing the prior order as both 'September' and 'October 23, 2026,' though the context indicates the substantive ruling was issued earlier and this judgment entered in October 2026. No separate opinion or dissent is noted in this entry. The judgment is entered 'without requiring any further proceedings,' indicating that the Court found no need for additional briefing, hearings, or factual development before granting the writ.
The docket entry for this document confirms that the case was terminated upon entry of judgment, with the notation 'MD JS-6, Case Terminated' indicating the administrative closure of the matter. The judgment grants the petition in full, and the reference to the prior order's 'reasons and findings' establishes that the Court's substantive analysis of the habeas claims is incorporated into this final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted habeas corpus relief to an immigration detainee under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and entered final judgment, terminating the case.
- The judgment incorporates by reference a prior order containing the Court's substantive reasoning, which was docketed as entry 9 in this action.
- Magistrate Judge Viramontes entered the judgment without requiring further proceedings, making the writ immediately enforceable upon entry.
- The document contains a date discrepancy referencing both September and October 23, 2026 for the prior order, reflecting a clerical error in the judgment entry.
- The JS-6 designation and 'Case Terminated' notation confirm that this Entry of Judgment constitutes the final, case-dispositive action in the matter.
Why It Matters
This Entry of Judgment finalizes the grant of habeas corpus relief for petitioner Gomez, requiring respondents to either release her or comply with the conditions set forth in the underlying order. The use of a magistrate judge to enter final judgment in a § 2241 proceeding suggests the parties may have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), though the consent order is not reflected in this document. The judgment's immediate enforceability without further proceedings underscores the summary nature of habeas relief when the Court finds detention unlawful.
The procedural posture of this case illustrates the streamlined mechanism by which federal courts can grant habeas relief in immigration detention matters. By entering judgment without requiring further proceedings, the Court signaled that the legal issues were sufficiently clear to warrant immediate relief. The incorporation by reference of the prior order's reasoning preserves the substantive analysis for appellate review while keeping the judgment entry itself concise. The clerical date discrepancy in the judgment entry does not affect the validity of the underlying grant of habeas relief, as the docket clearly reflects the sequence of filings and the case's termination.