The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARIA DE LOS ANGELES No. 1:26-cv-03334-DAD-JDP (HC)
MARTINEZ-BONILLA,
12
Petitioner,
13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
v. RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
14 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
ERNESTO SANTACRUZ, et al., RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT, AND
15 GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
Respondents. HABEAS CORPUS
16
(Doc. Nos. 7, 9)
17
18 Petitioner Maria De Los Angeles Martinez-Bonilla is a federal immigration detainee
19 proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter
20 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
21 Rule 302.
22 On May 14, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
23 recommending that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be granted. (Doc.
24 No. 7.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that petitioner’s detention was not lawfully
25 detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Id. at 2–6.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge
26 concluded that petitioner was entitled to immediate release in the absence of any argument by
27 respondents that a bond hearing was the appropriate remedy. (Id. at 6–7.) The pending findings
28 and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto
1 were to be filed within seven (7) days after service. (Id. at 7.) On May 18, 2026, respondents
2 filed their objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 8.)
3 Respondents’ objections first state that they object for the same reasons set forth in their
4 previous briefing. (Id. at 1.) These objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the
5 pending findings and recommendations. Respondents then argue that the appropriate relief is a
6 bond hearing because petitioner’s detention in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was not
7 pretextual in light of her arrest for an offense of driving under the influence. (Id. at 1–2.)
8 However, this argument was considered by the magistrate judge in the pending findings and
9 recommendations and rejected for two reasons. (Doc. Nos. 5 at 2–3; 7 at 6.) First, the magistrate
10 judge noted that respondents failed to argue that petitioner could constitute a danger or a risk of
11 flight. (Doc. No. 7 at 6.) In this regard, respondents’ argument in their objections appears to be a
12 new argument, which the court has discretion to decline to consider. Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742,
13 745 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the district judge’s discretion to decline to consider new
14 arguments raised in objections to findings and recommendations). Respondents could have raised
15 this argument in their initial briefing and are a sophisticated party. Accordingly, considering this
16 new argument would impermissibly “encourage sandbagging.” United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
17 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000) (“It would be fundamentally unfair to permit a litigant to set its case in
18 motion before the magistrate wait to see which way the wind was blowing, and—having received
19 an unfavorable recommendation—shift gears before the district judge.”) (cleaned up) (quoting
20 Paterson-Leitch Co., Inc. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985, 991 (1st Cir. 1988)).
21 Second, even if the court considered respondents’ objection on the merits, the magistrate
22 judge found that respondents’ unilateral determination that petitioner is subject to mandatory
23 detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) has subjected her to unlawful detention without a bond hearing
24 for multiple months. (Doc. No. 7 at 6.) The magistrate judge then concluded that this violation
25 of petitioner’s procedural due process rights rendered the remedy of a bond hearing
26 constitutionally insufficient. (Id.) Respondents’ objections do not provide a basis on which to
27 reject this analysis. Similarly, respondents’ opposition to petitioner’s May 22, 2026 motion for
28 temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 9) reiterated the argument made in respondents’ objections
1 that petitioner’s arrest renders her a danger to the community, but fails to rebut or even address
2 the magistrate judge’s considered and well-reasoned analysis that the delay in providing a bond
3 hearing renders immediate release the only appropriate remedy in this case. (Doc. No. 11 at 1–2.)
4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
5 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
6 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
7 For the reasons above,
8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 20, 2026 (Doc. No. 7) are
9 ADOPTED IN FULL;
10 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED as
11 follows:
12 a. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Maria De
13 Los Angeles Martinez-Bonilla, A-File No. 221-370-664, on the conditions,
14 if any, she was released on prior to her re-detention;
15 b. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining
16 petitioner unless they provide petitioner with notice and a pre-detention
17 hearing before an immigration judge, at which hearing the burden will be
18 set in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing
19 regulations;
20 3. Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED as
21 having been rendered moot by this order granting her habeas petition on the
22 merits;
23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on California City
24 Detention Facility; and
25 /////
26 /////
27 /////
28 /////
1 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of petitioner and
2 close this case.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
* | Dated: _May 28, 2026 Da A. 2, oyel
5 DALE A. DROZD
‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28