Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JIMMY THELUSMA (A No. 234-108- No. 1:26-cv-01443-JLT-EPG (HC)

849),

12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING THE

13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

v. CORPUS; DENYING MOTION FOR

14 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS MOOT;

WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE

15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., PETITIONER WITH A BOND HEARING;

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

16 Respondents. CLOSE CASE

17 (Docs. 1, 16, 18)

18 Jimmy Thelusma is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas

19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 On April 29, 2026, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

22 (“F&R”) to grant the petition, deny the motion for preliminary injunction as moot, and order

23 Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing. (Doc. 18.) The Court served the F&R on

24 all parties and notified them that any objections were due within fourteen days. (Id. at 10.) The

25 Court advised them that “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

26 appeal.” (Id. (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) On May 12, 2026,

27 Respondents filed timely objections based entirely on their previous briefing. (Doc. 19; see also

28 Doc. 10.)

1 On June 24, 2026, this Court learned through the EOIR public database that Petitioner had

2 been ordered removed by an Immigration Judge on June 12, 2026. As such, this Court requested

3 an update from Petitioner on whether any appeal had been filed. (See Doc. 20.) On July 6, 2026,

4 Petitioner informed the Court that he appealed his order of removal to the Board of Immigration

5 Appeals. (Doc. 21.) A routine review of EOIR’s public database confirms that a case appeal was

6 received on July 24, 2026, which remains pending. See EOIR, Automated Case Information,

7 https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseinformation (last visited August 11, 2026). Thus, Petitioner’s

8 order of removal is not yet administratively final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i).

9 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of the case.

10 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes that the F&R is supported by the

11 record and proper analysis. As a threshold matter, the F&R correctly concludes that Petitioner is

12 not subject to mandatory detention under the Laken Riley Act, codified in 8 U.S.C.

13 § 1226(c)(1)(B). (Doc. 18 at 3–4.) Petitioner was arrested and charged with attempted aggravated

14 assault in violation of New Jersey Stat. Ann. § 2C:12–1(b)(1), which does not require actual

15 serious bodily injury to result. (Id. at 4 (citing State v. Mukherjee, No. A-2450-23, 2025 WL

16 1341718, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 8, 2025).) By contrast, to qualify as an enumerated

17 crime under the Laken Riley Act, Petitioner must have been arrested or charged with a “crime

18 that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii)

19 (emphasis added). There is no indication in the record that actual harm resulted from that charge

20 and arrest.1 (See Doc. 10 at 3.)

21 In any event, as the F&R correctly concludes, upon an application of the factors

22 enumerated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), Petitioner’s prolonged detention under

23 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) entitles him to a bond hearing.2 (Doc. 18 at 4–9.) Petitioner has now been

24

1 To the extent Petitioner was also arrested and charged for other crimes on September 15, 2025, (e.g.,

25 criminal trespass—unlicensed entry of a structure—in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:18-3(a)),

Respondents fail to argue how these other crimes qualify as enumerated offenses under the Laken Riley

26 Act. (See Doc. 10 at 2–3.)

27 2 While this Court would typically apply the three-factor test in Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870,

879 (E.D. Cal. 2022) to determine whether a petitioner detained under § 1226(c) is entitled to an initial

28 bond hearing, courts in this circuit regularly apply the Mathews factors in this context as well. See Zagal-

1 detained in ICE custody since November 7, 2025, approximately nine months without an initial

2 bond determination. (Doc. 10 at 2.) Courts have found shorter lengths of mandatory immigration

3 detention without a bond hearing to be unreasonable. See, e.g., Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133,

4 137–38 (2d Cir. 2024) (affirming the district court judgement ordering a bond hearing for a

5 petitioner detained under § 1226(c) for seven months without a bond hearing); Sajous v. Decker,

6 No. 18-cv-2447 (AJN), 2018 WL 2357266, at *1, 10 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018) (granting

7 preliminary injunction and ordering individualized bond hearing for petitioner detained more than

8 eight months under § 1226(c) without a bond hearing). Furthermore, Petitioner’s nine-month

9 detention is close to reaching the one-year mark, which goes to the private interest factor and

10 weighs in favor of granting a bond hearing in this case. See Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d

11 870, 880 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (“In general, ‘[a]s detention continues past a year, courts become

12 extremely wary of permitting continued custody absent a bond hearing.’”) (citing Gonzalez v.

13 Bonnar, et al., No. 18-cv-05321-JSC, 2019 WL 330906, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019)).

14 Considering this, and the other factors as explained in the F&R, the Court finds that a bond

15 hearing is an appropriate remedy. (See Doc. 18 at 6–8.)

16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 29, 2026 (Doc. 18) is

18 ADOPTED IN FULL.

19 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.

20 3. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 16) is DENIED as MOOT.

21 4. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, unless Petitioner consents to a later

22 date, Respondents SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing

23 before an immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v.

24

25 Alcaraz v. ICE Field Office, No. 3:19-cv-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1862254, at *4 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2020

(applying both the Mathews test and a multi-factor test), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL

26 1855189 (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020); Mitka v. ICE Field Office Dir., No. C19-193 MJP, 2019 WL 5892025, at

*2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2019) (applying both the Mathews test and a multi-factor test); Henriquez v.

27 Garland, No. 5:22-cv-00869-EJD, 2022 WL 2132919, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) (applying the

Mathews test); Jimenez v. Wolf, et al., No. 19-cv-07996-NC, 2020 WL 510347, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30,

28 2020) (applying the Mathews test).

1 Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), where “the government must prove by clear

2 and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community

3 to justify denial of bond,” id. at 1203. In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a

4 danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention

5 without bond,” the immigration judge should consider Petitioner’s financial

6 circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d

7 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017).

8 5. Atleast 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, the Petitioner SHALL receive notice

9 of the hearing. He SHALL have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing,

10 and he SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing. If his counsel has filed an

11 appearance in the immigration proceedings, at least 72 hours before the hearing,

12 counsel SHALL receive notice of the scheduled hearing.

13 6. Respondents SHALL provide a copy of this order to the immigration judge presiding

14 over the bond hearing and SHALL arrange for the bond hearing to be recorded.

15 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Golden State Annex

16 Detention Facility in McFarland, California.

17 8. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE and enter judgement for

18 Petitioner.

19

20 | IT Is SO ORDERED.

2! Dated: _August 11, 2026_ ears [Tourn

22 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28