The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GERARDO MARTINEZ VALENCIA, No. 1:26-cv-02255-DAD-EFB (HC)
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 WARDEN,
(Doc. Nos. 1, 15)
15 Respondent.
16
17 Petitioner Gerardo Martinez Valencia is a federal immigration detainee proceeding
18 through counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This
19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
20 Local Rule 302.
21 On May 11, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
22 recommending that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be granted. (Doc.
23 No. 15.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that petitioner’s detention violates both the
24 Immigration and Nationality Act and due process. (Id. at 3–7.) The pending findings and
25 recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto
26 were to be filed within seven (7) days after service. (Id. at 7.) To date, no objections to the
27 findings and recommendations have been filed and the time in which to do so has passed.
28 /////
1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
2 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
3 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.1
4 Accordingly,
5 1. The findings and recommendations filed on May 11, 2026 (Doc. No. 15) are
6 ADOPTED IN FULL;
7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED as follows;
8 a. Respondent is ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Gerardo
9 Martinez Valencia, A-File No. 240-174-372, from respondent’s custody;
10 b. Respondent is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner
11 for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner
12 with notice and a hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
13 § 1226(a);
14
15 1 When the findings and recommendations were filed, the magistrate judge observed that
petitioner was ordered removed on April 22, 2026, but he had until May 22, 2026 to appeal that
16 order. (Doc. No. 15 at 2.) Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits courts to judicially
notice facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
17 reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). This includes information posted on official
government websites. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). The
18
Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) adjudicates immigration cases and hosts an
19 official government website where users may access case information, including final removal
orders and appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), for individuals with open
20 immigration cases through an automated case information system. See EOIR Automated Case
Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (last accessed May 27, 2026). The court will take
21 judicial notice of the fact that an appeal was filed in petitioner’s immigration case on May 18,
2026 and remains pending before the BIA as of May 27, 2026. See EOIR Automated Case
22
Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (searching by petitioner’s A-File Number and
23 nationality); see also Gahuin Aisalla v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-1744 DJC CSK, 2026 WL 1113793,
at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026) (taking judicial notice of an appeal pending before the BIA based
24 on a search of the EOIR’s automated case information system), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 1:26-cv-1744 DJC CSK, 2026 WL 1215602 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2026). Because the
25
appeal remains pending, petitioner’s removal order is not yet final and the magistrate judge’s
analysis remains fully supported. Muhammad A. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00950-KES-SKO (HC),
26
2026 WL 395900, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026) (“Here, because the order of removal is on
27 appeal to the BIA, the order of removal is not administratively final, and therefore, the removal
period has not yet begun.”); 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a) (providing that a removal order becomes final
28 “[u]pon dismissal of an appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals[.]”).
] 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the Golden State Annex Detention
2 Facility with a copy of this order; and
3 4. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and
4 to close this case.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated: _ May 27, 2026 Dal A. 2, Arye
7 DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28