Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adrian Alvarez Sosa, an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondent is the warden of California City Correctional Center. The case was referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 17, 2026, the magistrate judge issued amended findings and recommendations (Doc. 26) recommending that the petition be granted and that Sosa receive a bond hearing. They were served with notice that objections were due within fourteen days.
On October 2, 2026, the respondent filed a one-sentence objection resting entirely on "the reasons set forth in Respondents' previous briefing" (Doc. 27). As quoted in the order, the objection identified no new argument. The district judge reviewed the matter de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), considered the file including the objection, and concluded that the findings and recommendations were supported by the record and proper analysis. The order does not restate the facts of Sosa's detention or the underlying legal reasoning; those appear in Doc. 26, which was not among the materials reviewed for this summary.
The Court’s Holding
The court adopted the findings and recommendations and granted the petition "in part." The order does not say which part of the petition is denied. The relief actually ordered is a bond hearing, not release. Respondents must provide Sosa a hearing before an immigration judge within ten days that complies with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). At that hearing the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denying bond.
If the immigration judge finds that Sosa is not a danger to the community and not so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond, the judge should consider his financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Respondent must immediately give Sosa a copy of the order and 72 hours' notice of the hearing in a language he can understand. He may be represented by an attorney, and respondent may extend the deadline at his request so that he can obtain one. Any attorney he obtains must also receive 72 hours' notice.
The order also provides that if respondent does not provide a bond hearing within fourteen days, respondent must release Sosa. That fourteen-day period differs from the ten-day hearing deadline stated elsewhere in the order, and the order does not explain the difference. A footnote states that the hearing need not be held if Sosa becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and his detention becomes governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) within the time the order allows. The clerk was directed to close the case, terminate pending motions as moot, enter judgment for petitioner, and serve the facility with the order.
Key Takeaways
- The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings after de novo review, and a one-sentence objection that only cited prior briefing did not change the result.
- The petition was granted only in part, and the relief is a bond hearing within ten days rather than an order of release.
- Under Singh v. Holder, the government bears the burden of proving flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence at the hearing.
- Sosa must receive 72 hours' notice in a language he understands and may be represented by counsel, with the deadline extendable at his request to obtain an attorney.
- Release is required if no hearing occurs within fourteen days, unless an executable final removal order moves his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) within the allotted time.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation. It carries no precedential weight and directly governs only these parties. Its practical value is showing how an Eastern District of California judge structures relief in an individual immigration habeas case under the Ninth Circuit's Singh framework, including the government's burden of proof and consideration of financial circumstances and alternatives to detention.
Readers should not treat the order as explaining why Sosa was entitled to a hearing. The legal basis, the length and circumstances of his detention, and the portion of the petition denied would be found in Doc. 26, which the order adopts but does not reproduce. What remains open is the bond hearing itself: the order does not decide whether Sosa is a flight risk or a danger, and it does not address any appeal.