Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Castelly Saintilus Desvarieux, an immigration detainee, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondent is the warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal in findings and recommendations (Doc. 7). The premise of that recommendation was that an order of removal had been issued against the petitioner and that no appeal had been filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals. On that footing, the magistrate judge concluded that the petitioner was currently subject to the 90-day removal period set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). The order does not describe the petition's specific claims or the relief sought, so this article does not characterize them.
After the recommendation issued, the petitioner filed a notice of supplemental information (Doc. 8) reporting that an appeal had in fact been submitted to the BIA. The petitioner attached a Department of Justice filing receipt indicating that the appeal was received on September 24, 2026. The district judge also checked the Executive Office for Immigration Review's online case information site, which likewise showed an appeal submitted on September 24, 2026 and described it as currently pending. The court took judicial notice of that government website, citing Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association and Federal Rule of Evidence 201. The order refers to the findings and recommendations inconsistently, as dated October 1 or October 2, 2026 and as Doc. 6 or Doc. 7; this article follows the caption and docket entry and identifies them as Doc. 7.
The Court’s Holding
The district judge conducted de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and concluded that the magistrate judge's findings "are not supported by the current record before the Court given the pending appeal." The court cited Torres-Casas v. Blanche, 182 F.4th 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2026), for the points that an order of removal is stayed while an appeal is pending before the BIA and that the agency's decision becomes administratively final and legally effective after the BIA issues its decision. Because the finding that no appeal existed was the foundation for the recommended dismissal, the updated record no longer supported it.
The disposition is narrow. The court declined the findings and recommendations and referred the matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. It did not dismiss the petition, grant relief, order release, or decide whether the detention is lawful, and it did not reach the merits of any claim. The order is not a final judgment, and the petition remains pending. The court did not specify what further proceedings should occur, how the § 1231 analysis should be revisited, or what authority governs the detention while the appeal is pending.
Key Takeaways
- A district judge reviewing a recommended dismissal de novo may decline it when the record shows its factual premise, here that no BIA appeal had been filed, was wrong.
- The court relied on Torres-Casas v. Blanche for the proposition that a removal order is stayed while a BIA appeal is pending and becomes administratively final and effective after the BIA decides.
- Judicial notice of an official government website, here the EOIR case information system, let the court confirm that the appeal was pending.
- The order is a procedural ruling, not a final judgment: the petition remains pending before the magistrate judge and nothing was decided on the merits.
- As an unreported district court order, it is not binding precedent, though it shows how the court applied Ninth Circuit authority on the effect of a pending appeal.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a changed procedural fact can unsettle a recommended dismissal in an immigration habeas case. The magistrate judge treated the petitioner as within the 90-day removal period under § 1231(a)(1)(A) because no appeal appeared to exist; once a pending BIA appeal was shown, the district judge held that premise unsupported on the current record and sent the case back.
What remains open is substantial. The order does not decide whether the petitioner's detention is lawful, which statute governs it, or whether the petition has merit, and it does not resolve how the pending appeal affects the § 1231 analysis. Those questions return to the magistrate judge. Because the order is unreported and procedural, it carries no precedential weight beyond its application of Torres-Casas.