Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hurshed Solejonovich Fozilov, a federal immigration detainee, filed a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Christopher Chestnut and other respondents. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 29, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, served them on all parties, and gave notice that objections were due within three days.
Respondents objected the next day by relying on the reasons in their previous briefing. The district court explained that those arguments had already been addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned judge in other cases. The court cited decisions granting temporary or immediate release based on likely success on due process claims and rejecting the position that a previously paroled petitioner was entitled to no process beyond that supplied by statute. It therefore concluded that the objections supplied no basis to reject the recommendations.
The Court’s Holding
Acting under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the court conducted de novo review of the entire file and found the findings and recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis. It adopted the October 29 recommendations and granted the petition on Count Three, the due process claim. A footnote explained that the court would not wait for the objection period to expire because it was granting the relief Fozilov sought and respondents had already objected. Another footnote stated that the remaining grounds need not be addressed because the due process ruling entitled him to the requested relief.
The operative order requires Fozilov's immediate release from respondents' custody under the same conditions that applied immediately before his August 2026 detention. Respondents may not add restrictions such as electronic monitoring unless a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing determines that they are necessary. They must return his documents and possessions upon release and file a notice confirming compliance within three days. If the government seeks to detain him again, it must give at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which his bond eligibility is considered.
The order expressly leaves open the circumstances in which respondents may detain Fozilov if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order and receives notice of that order. It also directs the Clerk to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for Fozilov, and close the case. The document is dated November 3, 2026, and bears Dena Coggins's identification as United States District Judge.
Key Takeaways
- The district court independently reviewed the record and adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations over respondents' objections.
- Fozilov prevailed on Count Three, his due process claim, and the court did not decide the petition's additional grounds.
- Release must be immediate and under the conditions preceding his August 2026 detention, with no added electronic monitoring unless a future hearing establishes its necessity.
- Any government effort to re-detain him requires at least seven days' notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The decision does not resolve detention following notice of an executable final order of removal.
Why It Matters
The order converts the magistrate judge's recommendations into a judgment granting release, rather than merely recommending relief or scheduling further proceedings. Its detailed directives govern the conditions of release, return of property, compliance reporting, and procedural protections before any renewed detention.
The court's treatment of the objections also shows that simply incorporating previously rejected briefing did not undermine the recommendations on de novo review. At the same time, the decision is limited: it resolves the petition through the due process count and expressly reserves the distinct situation involving an executable final removal order.