# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · April 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380676

## Case

- **Full name:** Leonel Flores v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 16, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380676

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 LEONEL FLORES (A-Number: 078-061- No. 1:26-cv-00761-KES-EPG (HC)
329),
11 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
12 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
v. CORPUS, AND DIRECTING
13 RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE AN
WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY INDIVIDUALIZED BOND HEARING
14 DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Docs. 1, 16
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner Leonel Flores is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for
18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On April 6, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that
21 recommended granting the petition and directing respondents to provide petitioner with a bond
22 hearing. Doc. 16. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained
23 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. On April 16,
24 2026, respondents filed a one-sentence objection, objecting “[f]or the reasons set forth in
25 Respondents’ prior filing.” Doc. 17.1
26

27 1 Respondents also note that the parties completed briefing petitioner’s appeal at the Board of
Immigration Appeals, but they do not provide any argument as to how this would bear on the
28 analysis. See Doc. 17.
1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviewed the matter de novo. Having
2 | carefully reviewed the file, including respondents’ objections, the Court concludes that the
3 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
4 The Court ORDERS:
5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 6, 2026, Doc. 16, are ADOPTED
6 in full.
7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.
8 3. Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner Leonel Flores (A-Number: 078-061-
9 329) with a bond hearing before an immigration judge to be held within THIRTY (30)
10 days that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196
11 (9th Cir. 2011), at which:
12 a. “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that
13 [petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of
14 bond,” Singh, 638 F.3d at 1203, and
15 b. the IJ should consider petitioner’s financial circumstances or alternative
16 conditions of release in the event petitioner is determined not to be a danger
17 to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention
18 without bond.
19 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
20
21
97 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _
23 Dated: _ April 16, 2026 4h | |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□

25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380676. Public record. Not legal advice.