Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kelly Melissa Ayala, an immigration detainee proceeding through counsel, 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 on October 21, 2026. The petition named Markwayne Mullin and other respondents, and the case was docketed as No. 1:26-cv-8672 TLN CSK. That same day, the district court referred the action to the assigned magistrate judge. The referral placed the matter before the magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings and the preparation of findings and recommendations rather than for entry of a final judgment.
On November 3, 2026, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the action as moot. Their motion stated that an immigration judge granted Ayala bond on October 23, 2026, that she posted bond, and that she was released from custody on October 28, 2026. On November 4, 2026, Ayala responded, acknowledging that she had been released from respondents' custody and stating that she did not oppose the motion to dismiss. On November 6, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations rather than a final judgment. The document therefore proposes a disposition for the assigned district judge's review and does not itself terminate the case.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that respondents' motion to dismiss be granted. The order's stated basis is narrow: 'Based on petitioner's non-opposition to respondents' motion to dismiss, this Court recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted.' The mootness argument and Ayala's release from custody appear as the factual context in the motion and her response, not as an independent merits holding by the magistrate judge. The recommendation rests on the petitioner's decision not to oppose dismissal after acknowledging her release, rather than on a separate judicial determination that the habeas petition was moot on the merits.
The recommendation also directs that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in respondents' favor and close the case if the recommendation is adopted. The document does not itself enter judgment, finally dismiss the petition, or adjudicate the underlying habeas claims. It was submitted to the assigned United States District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with fourteen days to file written objections, fourteen days after service of objections for any response, and a warning that failure to object may waive the right to appeal the district court's order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). The magistrate judge's role here is advisory: the operative directives are recommendations, not orders, and the case remains pending before the district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because Ayala did not oppose respondents' motion to dismiss after she was released on bond.
- The recommendation rests on the petitioner's non-opposition, not on a final judicial ruling that the habeas petition was moot on the merits.
- The recommended disposition includes entry of judgment for respondents and closure of the case by the Clerk of Court upon adoption.
- The findings and recommendations remain subject to review by the assigned district judge, with a fourteen-day objection period.
- The document does not report a later district-court order adopting or rejecting the recommendation.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the procedural posture of an immigration habeas case after the detainee's release: respondents moved to dismiss as moot, the petitioner acknowledged release and did not oppose, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal on that non-opposition. The report therefore concerns a recommended disposition, not a final judgment or a merits ruling on detention. The narrow stated basis—non-opposition—means the recommendation does not establish a substantive mootness holding that would bind the district judge or create precedent.
The order also preserves the standard review path for magistrate-judge findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any final significance depends on the assigned district judge's later action, which is not included in this document. The fourteen-day objection period and the Martinez v. Ylst waiver warning underscore that the recommendation is interlocutory and subject to de novo review if objections are filed.