Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Amirhoessein Nasr Esfahani, an immigration detainee proceeding with counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Christopher Chestnut et al. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 1:26-cv-03144-KES-FJS. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The resulting order was signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff.
On September 28, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (Doc. 13) recommending that the petition be granted in part and ordering that petitioner be provided a bond hearing. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days after service. On October 9, 2026, respondents filed objections "for the reasons stated in [Respondents'] prior pleading" (Doc. 14).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court reviewed the matter de novo. Having carefully reviewed the file, including respondents' objections, the court concluded that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered that the findings and recommendations (Doc. 13) are adopted in full, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is granted in part. It ordered respondents to provide petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within fourteen (14) days, in a hearing that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011).
At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond. The immigration judge should also consider petitioner's financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release in the event petitioner is determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond.
Respondents must immediately provide petitioner with a copy of the order and give him 72 hours' notice before the bond hearing in a language he can understand. Petitioner may be represented by an attorney at the hearing, respondents may extend the deadline at petitioner's request so that he can obtain an attorney, and if he obtains an attorney, that attorney must also be given 72 hours' notice before the hearing. If respondents do not provide the bond hearing within fourteen days, they must release him. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate any pending motions, close the case, and enter judgment for petitioner, and to serve the California City Detention Center with a copy of the order.
Key Takeaways
- The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and adopted them in full.
- The habeas petition was granted in part, and respondents were ordered to provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days.
- At the hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond under Singh v. Holder.
- The immigration judge should consider the detainee's financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release if detention without bond is not justified.
- If respondents fail to provide the hearing within 14 days, they must release the petitioner; the court closed the case and directed entry of judgment for petitioner.
Why It Matters
The order turns the magistrate judge's recommendation into a concrete, enforceable remedy rather than a remand for further proceedings: a 14-day deadline for a bond hearing, a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on the government, 72-hour notice and attorney-access protections, and an express release requirement if the deadline is missed. It resolves the detention challenge in petitioner's favor in part and directs entry of judgment.
Procedurally, the decision illustrates the district court's de novo review of a magistrate judge's habeas findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although respondents objected, the court found the recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis, adopted them over the objections, and closed the case.