Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Felipe Perez Lopez, an immigration detainee proceeding through counsel, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. 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 7, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties along with notice that any objections were to be filed within three days.
Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The district court then reviewed the file, presuming the magistrate judge's findings of fact to be correct under Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979), and reviewing the conclusions of law de novo under Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Court’s Holding
The district court found the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis, and adopted them in full. The court granted Perez Lopez's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered that he be released immediately from the respondent's custody, subject to the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention in June 2026. The court further ordered that the respondent not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing.
The court also directed the respondent to return all of Perez Lopez's documents and possessions, including identification, passport, work permit, and Social Security card, upon his release. Within three days of the order, the respondent was required to file a notice of compliance confirming the release. If the government seeks to re-detain Perez Lopez, it must provide no less than seven days' notice and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which his eligibility for bond must be considered. The court expressly noted that the order does not address the circumstances in which the respondent may detain Perez Lopez if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and receives notice of that order. The Clerk of the Court was directed to serve a copy of the order on the California City Detention Facility, enter judgment for the petitioner, and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A federal district court granted an immigration detainee's § 2241 habeas corpus petition and ordered his immediate release from custody.
- The release must be under the same conditions that existed before the petitioner's detention in June 2026, and the government may not impose additional restrictions such as electronic monitoring without a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing.
- The government must return all of the petitioner's personal documents and possessions, including his passport, work permit, and Social Security card, upon his release.
- If the government seeks to re-detain the petitioner, it must provide at least seven days' notice and hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter.
- The court expressly left open the question of detention in the event the petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal with notice.
Why It Matters
This order underscores the role of federal habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a check on immigration detention, resulting here in a court-ordered immediate release with specific procedural safeguards against re-detention. The detailed conditions imposed—including advance notice, a neutral arbiter, and a bond hearing—reflect due process considerations that apply when the government seeks to deprive a noncitizen of liberty.
The decision also illustrates the practical operation of the magistrate judge referral process under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), where unopposed findings and recommendations are adopted by the district court after de novo review of legal conclusions. The express carve-out regarding executable final orders of removal signals that the court was careful to delineate the scope of its ruling.