Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Andres Lopez Flores, an immigration detainee, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 1:26-cv-00002-DC-CKD (HC). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 1.)
On September 2, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties with notice that any objections were due within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 11.) Respondents Wanda Wilson and the other respondents objected (Doc. No. 12), pointing to their opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order and to the reasoning of two out-of-circuit cases. In those objections, respondents acknowledged that during the pendency of the case the Ninth Circuit decided Rodriguez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), ruling contrary to the respondents' position.
The district court then conducted a de novo review of the entire file under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. The resulting order was dated October 26, 2026 and filed October 27, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The district court concluded that respondents' arguments had already been addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge and by the undersigned district judge in this case and, as respondents themselves acknowledged, by the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez, 183 F.4th 1160. Because respondents provided no basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations, the court found the recommendations supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, the court ordered that the findings and recommendations filed September 2, 2026 (Doc. No. 11) are adopted; that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is granted; and that the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted (Doc. No. 8) is made permanent.
The order expressly stated that it does not address the circumstances in which respondents may detain petitioner in the event petitioner 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 petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- After conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations as supported by the record and by proper analysis.
- The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by immigration detainee Andres Lopez Flores against respondents Wanda Wilson et al.
- The preliminary injunctive relief previously granted was made permanent, giving petitioner ongoing relief in this action.
- Respondents' objections failed because they relied on arguments already addressed and rejected and on out-of-circuit cases undermined by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez v. Bostock.
- The order left open whether respondents may detain petitioner after an executable final removal order and notice, and it directed the Clerk to enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural path for a § 2241 habeas petition referred to a magistrate judge: de novo district-court review can lead to adoption of the recommendations, a granted petition, and permanent injunctive relief. It also shows that contrary controlling circuit authority can defeat reliance on out-of-circuit cases in immigration detention litigation, particularly where the objecting party itself concedes the adverse circuit ruling.
The express carve-out regarding detention after an executable final removal order is significant because the judgment resolves the present habeas relief without deciding respondents' future detention authority under a final removal order, leaving that question open for a later proceeding.