Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roneel Deo, a federal immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California against Christopher Chestnut and other respondents. The case was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 23, 2026, the magistrate judge filed amended findings and recommendations that, as the district judge's order describes them, recommended granting habeas relief. The parties were told that objections were due within three days.
Respondents objected on July 24, 2026. They argued that relief should be denied because Deo was still within the presumptively reasonable six-month detention period that follows the date his removal order became administratively final. The district judge noted that the magistrate judge had addressed and rejected those arguments in this case, and that she had rejected them in other cases. The order is short and does not recite how long Deo was detained, when his removal order became final, or the other underlying facts. Those details appear in the findings and recommendations, which were not among the materials reviewed.
The Court’s Holding
After de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, Judge Dena Coggins found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis, and adopted them. She overruled the government's objection. She relied on her own earlier decision in Marjanjou v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, 2026 WL 1785248 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2026). There, she found that habeas relief may be warranted within the first six months after a removal order becomes administratively final, where the noncitizen was subjected to an extended period of immigration detention before the order became final. In Marjanjou she granted relief about five months after finality. The order does not say how long Deo was detained before his order became final, so it is best read as an application of that reasoning rather than a new rule.
The court granted the petition. Within 14 days, Respondents must give Deo a bond hearing before an immigration judge. At that hearing the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Deo is a flight risk or a risk to community safety such that continued detention is justified. Respondents must give Deo and his counsel seven days' advance notice of the hearing and allow counsel to attend. If Respondents do not comply, Deo must be released immediately. Within 17 days of entry of the order, Respondents must file a status report certifying compliance and attaching the immigration judge's order from the hearing. The clerk was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for Deo, and close the case. The order does not order release outright, and it does not decide whether detention will ultimately be justified. That question goes to the immigration judge.
Key Takeaways
- The order treats the presumptively reasonable six-month period after a final removal order as no automatic bar to habeas relief where the person was previously held for an extended time.
- The remedy is a bond hearing before an immigration judge, not release. Release follows only if the government fails to provide the hearing as ordered.
- At the hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
- The order sets firm deadlines: the hearing within 14 days, seven days' notice to the detainee and counsel, and a compliance report within 17 days that attaches the immigration judge's ruling.
- This is a district court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation and relying on the same judge's earlier ruling, so it is not appellate authority and does not bind other courts.
Why It Matters
The order shows how this judge handles a common government argument in immigration habeas cases. When detention has already been lengthy, she does not treat the six-month window after a final removal order as a safe harbor. The reasoning comes from her earlier Marjanjou decision, which supports a bond hearing even when the final order is only a few months old.
Its weight is limited. It is a short, non-precedential order that adopts findings not reproduced here, and it does not set out the detention timeline or the legal framework in detail. Those points matter for anyone comparing it to other cases. The government's apparent opportunity to justify detention at the hearing, and any later review of the immigration judge's decision, remain open.