Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Norberto Jose Sivira Manzano, a federal immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case, No. 1:26-cv-07284-DAD-SCR, challenged his custody at the California City Detention Center and was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 for findings and recommendations.
On October 2, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be granted. The magistrate judge concluded that Sivira Manzano's re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing violated due process. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that objections were due within three days after service.
On October 5, 2026, the respondent Warden filed objections stating that he objected for the reasons in his prior briefing, specifically objecting to the recommendation that Sivira Manzano be immediately released. The respondent provided no substantive analysis or reasoning in support of the objection. The matter then came before District Judge Dale A. Drozd for de novo review, and the resulting order is dated October 14, 2026 and was filed October 15, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Dale A. Drozd conducted de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), carefully reviewed the entire file, and concluded that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations were supported by the record and by proper analysis. Relying on the reasoning in Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), the court concluded that Sivira Manzano was entitled to immediate release and rejected the respondent's objections as unpersuasive.
The court adopted the October 2, 2026 findings and recommendations in full and granted the habeas petition. The respondent was ordered to immediately release Sivira Manzano from custody on the same conditions, if any, that applied before his re-detention on or about July 30, 2026.
The court also enjoined and restrained the respondent from re-detaining Sivira Manzano for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge at which the respondent bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Sivira Manzano is a danger or flight risk. The Clerk of the Court was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment in favor of the petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The district court granted a pro se immigration detainee's § 2241 habeas petition and ordered his immediate release from custody.
- The court agreed with the magistrate judge that re-detention without notice and a pre-detention hearing violated due process.
- The respondent's objections were rejected as unpersuasive because they offered no substantive analysis or reasoning beyond prior briefing.
- The court relied on its prior decision in Chavarria v. Chestnut to conclude that immediate release was warranted.
- Any future re-detention, absent exigent circumstances, requires notice and a hearing before an immigration judge where the government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces due process protections for immigration detainees who are re-detained after release, requiring notice and a hearing before an immigration judge before the government may take them back into custody. It also places the burden on the government to justify re-detention by clear and convincing evidence.
The decision illustrates how district courts in the Eastern District of California are applying the reasoning of Chavarria v. Chestnut to grant habeas relief to immigration detainees, and it shows that perfunctory objections to findings and recommendations are unlikely to succeed on de novo review.