Bing Liu v. Todd M. Lyons, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BING LIU, Case No. 1:26-cv-00238-KES-SAB-HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS TODD M. LYONS, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner, represented by counsel, is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I. On January 26, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ordered Petitioner released from custody, and referred the matter to the undersigned for further proceedings, including the preparation of findings and recommendations on the petition or other appropriate action. (ECF No. 12.) On March 27, 2026, Respondents filed a response to the petition. (ECF No. 24.) To date, no reply has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. II. The Court previously ordered Respondents to show cause “as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Court’s prior orders . . . and justify denying the motion for temporary restraining order, or indicate the matter is not substantively distinguishable.” (ECF No. 8.) As Respondents had “not made any new legal arguments and ha[d] not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions,” the district judge granted a preliminary injunction and ordered Petitioner released “for the reasons addressed in those prior orders.” (ECF No. 12 at 2.!) In the response, Respondents argue that “[flor the reasons set forth in the Respondents’ previous filing, Respondents assert that Petitioner’s detention was lawful.” (ECF No. 24 at 1.) Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the petition be granted for the reasons stated in the order granting preliminary injunction. Hil. Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 1T IS SO ORDERED. OF af Bc Dated: _ July 28, 2026 : STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge 1 page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.