Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Adriano A.G., a federal immigration detainee held at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the lawfulness of his prolonged detention. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 21, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations (ECF No. 17) in favor of the Petitioner, which were served on all parties with notice that objections were due within three days. Respondents filed objections (ECF No. 18) on October 24, 2026, incorporating by reference the reasoning set forth in their prior response to the petition.
The Court’s Holding
Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley conducted a de novo review of the record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. The Court found the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper legal analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations in full. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was granted on Count One, which alleged a violation of Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), governing the permissible duration of post-removal-period detention. The Court ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner Adriano A.G. (A# 220-071-417) under an order of supervision and to return all his documents and possessions at the time of release. Respondents are required to file a notice of compliance within two court days. The Court further enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner absent a travel document for his removal or materially changed circumstances set out in a notice to Petitioner, requiring a minimum of seven days’ pre-deprivation notice and strict compliance with 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.13(i) and 241.4(l). The Clerk was directed to serve the order, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court granted a habeas corpus petition for an immigration detainee based on a Zadvydas v. Davis violation, finding prolonged detention unlawful.
- The Court ordered immediate release under an order of supervision, not merely a bond hearing or further administrative review.
- Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining the petitioner without a travel document or materially changed circumstances, with mandatory seven-day pre-deprivation notice and regulatory compliance.
- The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in full after de novo review, overruling Respondents’ objections.
- The case was closed with judgment entered in Petitioner’s favor.
Why It Matters
The operative relief is unusually concrete: immediate supervised release, return of documents and possessions, and a compliance notice within two court days. The injunction also restricts renewed detention unless the government has a removal travel document, if one is necessary, or materially changed circumstances described to Adriano in advance. The order requires at least seven days’ pre-deprivation notice and compliance with the cited federal regulations. Practitioners should note the document adopts earlier findings without reproducing their factual analysis; the published takeaway therefore rests on the relief actually ordered, not assumptions about facts contained in the separate recommendation.
Because the order adopts a separate recommendation, it does not restate the evidence showing why removal was not reasonably foreseeable. That omission counsels against treating this two-page document as a broad new rule. Its significance lies in the remedy and in the district judge’s conclusion, after de novo review, that the recommendation was supported by the file and proper analysis. Lawyers relying on the decision should obtain the incorporated findings for factual comparisons, while using this order as the authoritative source for the judgment, release command, compliance deadline, and limits on renewed detention.