The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
WAGNER ROMEO CURRUCHICH Case No. 2:26-cv-00670 DAD CSK
11
TUMUX (A-221-491-892),
12
Petitioner,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
13
v. RECOMMENDATIONS
14
WARDEN, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
18 Petitioner Wagner Romeo Curruchich (A-221-491-892), a noncitizen, filed a petition for a
19 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his re-detention by U.S. Immigration
20 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner appears to argue that on January 5,
21 2026, an immigration judge denied him bond solely on the basis of “risk of flight” in violation of
22 his statutory rights and the Fifth Amendment due process clause. (Id. at 9-10.) For the following
23 reasons, this Court recommends that the petition be denied.
24 I. LEGAL STANDARD
25 The Constitution guarantees the availability of the writ of habeas corpus “to every
26 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)
27 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in
28
1 custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure
2 release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas
3 corpus may be granted to a petitioner who demonstrates that he is in custody in violation of the
4 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has
5 served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its
6 protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). A district court’s
7 habeas jurisdiction includes challenges to immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
8 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
9 II. DISCUSSION1
10 On March 2, 2026, petitioner filed his habeas petition and a motion for a temporary
11 restraining order. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On March 2, 2026, the district court ordered respondents to
12 file a response to petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 4.) On March
13 3, 2026, respondents filed an opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF
14 No. 6.) On March 4, 2026, the district court denied petitioner’s motion for a temporary
15 restraining order. (ECF No. 7.) The district court noted that petitioner claimed that he entered
16 the United States lawfully on a valid visa, was currently detained, and on January 5, 2026
17 appeared before an immigration judge for a custody redetermination. (Id.) The immigration
18 judge denied bond “based solely on a finding that [p]etitioner allegedly posed a risk of flight.”
19 (Id.) In the opposition to petitioner’s motion, respondents clarified that petitioner had been in
20 detention for three months. (Id.) The district court found that petitioner’s chief complaint
21 appeared to be that the immigration judge denied him release on bond based solely on a finding of
22 risk of flight, as opposed to dangerousness. (Id.) The district court found that an immigration
23 judge may deny bond based on the detainee’s “dangerousness or risk of flight,” and as such
24 petitioner had not demonstrated that the immigration judge erred. (Id. (citing Martinez v. Clark,
25 124 F.4th 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024).) The district court referred this action to the undersigned for
26 further proceedings. (Id.)
27
1 The factual and procedural background previously presented in the district judge’s March 4,
28 2026 order is incorporated herein. (See ECF No. 7.)
1 On March 10, 2026, this Court granted petitioner ten days to file a traverse. (ECF No. 8.)
2 On March 20, 2026, petitioner filed a traverse. (ECF No. 9.)
3 On May 27, 2026, petitioner filed a notice stating that on May 18, 2026, an immigration
4 judge ordered petitioner removed. (ECF No. 12.) Petitioner stated that on May 26, 2026, he
5 appealed the immigration judge’s May 18, 2026 order to the Board of Immigration Appeals
6 (“BIA”). (Id.) On May 27, 2026, petitioner also filed a motion for immediate release. (ECF No.
7 13.) On June 3, 2026, the district court ordered respondents to file a response to this motion.
8 (ECF No. 14.) On June 4, 2026, respondents filed an opposition to petitioner’s motion for
9 immediate release. (ECF No. 15.) On June 8, 2026, the district court denied petitioner’s motion
10 for immediate release. (ECF No. 16.) The district court stated that in the motion for immediate
11 release, petitioner argued that the detention authority applicable to him had shifted from
12 8 U.S.C. § 1226 to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 because a removal order was entered on May 18, 2026. (Id.
13 at 1-2.) The district court found that petitioner’s removal order was not final because petitioner
14 had appealed the May 18, 2026 removal order to the BIA. (Id. at 2.) Therefore, petitioner was
15 still detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id.) The district court denied petitioner’s motion
16 for immediate release for the same reasons stated in its previous March 4, 2026 order denying
17 petitioner’s initial motion for temporary restraining order. (Id.) The district court referred this
18 matter to the undersigned. (Id.)
19 Where the record before the district court has not changed since the district court’s ruling
20 on the motion for a temporary restraining order, this Court recommends that the petition for writ
21 of habeas corpus be denied based on a finding that neither petitioner’s statutory rights nor his
22 rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment were violated based on the immigration judge’s
23 January 5, 2026 order denying petitioner bond based solely on a finding that petitioner posed a
24 flight risk. See Martinez, 124 F.4th at 786 (holding that, for petitioner detained under
25 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the BIA properly noted that the government bore the burden to establish by
26 clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was a flight risk); Singh v. Warden of California
27 City Detention Facility, 2026 WL 1088902, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2026), findings and
28 recommendations adopted, 2026 WL 1557896 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 2, 2026) (citing Lopez v. Garland,
1 | 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 882 n. 9 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (collecting cases) (“In the wake of Martinez,
2 || district courts in this Circuit have held that, where due process requires a bond hearing, the
3 || government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger
4 || to the community to justify the denial of bond.”’).
5 | I. MOTIONS TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF MERITS OF PETITION
6 On May 12, 2026 and May 26, 2026, petitioner filed motions to expedite the consideration
7 || of the merits of his petition. These motions are denied as moot because the instant findings and
8 || recommendations address the merits of the petition.
9 | IV. CONCLUSION
10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motions to expedite
11 || consideration of the merits of the petition (ECF Nos. 10, 11) are denied as moot.
12 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
13 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED.
14 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment for respondent and close this case.
15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
18 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
19 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
20 || objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties
21 || are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal
22 | the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
23
24 | Dated: June 11, 2026 A aA
Aan Spe |
CHI SOO KIM
26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27 || Tumu670.157.imm/2
28