Opinion

Warden

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jun 16, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 41.7%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 ANIBAL A. VELASQUEZ HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-04449-KES-SAB-HC

11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF

12 v. HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECT

RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY

13 WARDEN, et al., RELEASE PETITIONER

14 Respondents.

15

16 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

18 I.

19 BACKGROUND

20 Petitioner is a noncitizen who has lived in the United States since 2008 and is married

21 and is the father of two U.S. citizen children. Petitioner owns property, has filed taxes, and has

22 worked consistently. Petitioner alleges he has no criminal history. Petitioner has been detained

23 since February 20, 2026, and an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied custody redetermination due to

24 lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 1–2.1) On May 7, 2026, an IJ denied cancellation of removal

25 and ordered Petitioner removed to Honduras. Petitioner is pursuing appellate review before the

26 Board of Immigration Appeals. (Id. at 4.)

27

1 On June 1, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States

2 District Court for the Central District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On June 10, 2026, the petition

3 was transferred to this Court. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) On June 15, 2026, Respondents filed a response to

4 the petition. (ECF No. 11.)

5 II.

6 DISCUSSION

7 The Court finds that issuance of findings and recommendation is appropriate despite the

8 time for Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents’ response having not yet expired.

9 Respondents argue that Petitioner is “an ‘applicant for admission’ who is subject to

10 mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) Such arguments

11 have been rejected by this Court in numerous previous decisions. See, e.g., Crispin M.C. v.

12 Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026);

13 J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct.

14 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025).

15 Respondents acknowledge that this “case is in the category of cases for which the Court

16 has typically ordered immediate release. This case is not substantively distinguishable from the

17 cases listed in the Court’s minute order.” (ECF No. 11 at 1.) As Respondents have not made any

18 new legal arguments and have not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that would

19 distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions set forth above, the Court recommends finding that

20 Petitioner is entitled to immediate release. See J.A.C.P., 2025 WL 3013328, at *8.

21 III.

22 RECOMMENDATION

23 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

24 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED.

25 2. Respondents be directed to immediately release Petitioner.

26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

27 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

1 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file

2 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any

3 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

4 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days

5 | after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate

6 | Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

7 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

8 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

9 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

10

IT IS SO ORDERED. tf (Sc

12 | Dated: _ June 16, 2026 OF

STANLEY A. BOONE

13 United States Magistrate Judge

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.