Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jossie E. Aranguren Pacheco, identified in the order as an immigration detainee, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Kristi Noem and other respondents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case, No. 1:25-cv-01901-DC-CKD (HC), was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The resulting two-page order, captioned 'Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations' and issued as Document 20, does not recount the underlying detention facts, the petition's legal theories, or the precise terms of the earlier injunction; it supplies the procedural framework, the standard of review, and the district court's disposition.
On September 1, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations at docket entry 19. They were served on all parties and included notice that any objections were due within fourteen days. Neither party filed objections. The district court therefore stated that it presumed the magistrate judge's findings of fact correct, citing Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979), and reviewed the conclusions of law de novo, citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The order was dated October 26, 2026 and filed October 27, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
After reviewing the file, the district court found the findings and recommendations supported by both the record and the magistrate judge's analysis. Acting on the unopposed recommendations, the court ordered that the September 1, 2026 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 19) are adopted, that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is granted, and that the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted (Doc. Nos. 10, 15) is made permanent. The order itself states the court's review and disposition; it does not independently reproduce the magistrate judge's underlying merits reasoning or the injunction's exact operative terms.
The court expressly limited the reach of its decision. It ordered that the decision does not address the circumstances in which respondents may detain Pacheco if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of that final order. The Clerk of the Court was directed to enter judgment for Pacheco and close the case. Thus, the operative result is a granted petition, permanent injunctive relief carrying forward the earlier preliminary orders, and judgment for the petitioner, while the specified future-removal detention scenario remains unresolved.
Key Takeaways
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's September 1, 2026 findings and recommendations after neither party filed objections within the fourteen-day period.
- The court granted Pacheco's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- Preliminary injunctive relief previously entered at docket entries 10 and 15 was made permanent.
- The order expressly did not decide detention circumstances following an executable final order of removal and notice of that order to Pacheco.
- The Clerk of the Court was directed to enter judgment for Pacheco and close the case.
Why It Matters
The order converts the magistrate judge's recommendations into the district court's own disposition and changes the earlier preliminary injunctive relief from a provisional posture into permanent relief. Its express reservation is equally important: the decision should not be read as resolving every possible future basis for detention, particularly the specified situation involving an executable final removal order and notice of that order.
Because the supplied order adopts a separate findings-and-recommendations document without reproducing its analysis, the precise merits reasoning and the injunction's detailed terms cannot be determined from this order alone. What is established here is the standard of review applied, the absence of objections, the adoption and grant of relief, the permanent injunction, the reserved future-detention issue, and the direction to enter judgment and close the case.