BOSS PETERSON SAINT LOUIS (A-241-008-786) v. WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE DETENTION FACILITY, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOSS PETERSON SAINT LOUIS (A- No. 1:26-cv-01873-DC-CSK (HC) 241-008-786), 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE (ECF Nos. 7, 8) 15 DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se filed an application for a writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 3, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 22 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. On April 9, 2026, Respondents 24 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 10. In their objections, 25 Respondents merely state that they object for the reasons outlined in their motion to dismiss. Id. 26 at 2. However, those arguments were addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case 27 and by the undersigned in other cases. Specifically, the undersigned has found that the Due 28 Process Clause requires that, in order for the government to re-detain a noncitizen who has been 1 previously released on bond or conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or humanitarian 2 parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), the government must provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing 3 before a neutral arbiter at which the noncitizen’s eligibility for bond must be considered. See Selis 4 Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) (granting 5 motion for temporary restraining order and immediate release of the petitioner based on his 6 likelihood of success on the merits of his due process claim); Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv- 7 01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (same); D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv- 8 01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026) (same); Altin v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv- 9 00792-DC-CSK, Doc. No. 8 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining 10 order and habeas petition as to the petitioner’s due process claim). Thus, Respondents’ objections 11 do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations. 12 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 13 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 14 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has 15 reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 16 by the magistrate judge’s analysis.1 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8) are ADOPTED in full; 19 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED; 20 3. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED; 21 4. Respondents are ordered to IMMEDIATELY release petitioner Boss Peterson Saint 22 Louis (A-241-008-786) with the same conditions he was subject to prior to his detention and are 23 ordered to provide petitioner with a copy of the release order at or near the time of release. If 24 respondents have custody of petitioner’s documents (e.g., identification, passport, work permit, 25 Social Security card, etc.), respondents shall return those to petitioner at the time of release. 26

27 1 A certificate of appealability is not required for an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Harrison v. 28 Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2008). ] a. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 2 seven (7) days’ notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond 3 hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond 4 must be considered; and 5 b. This order does not address the circumstances in which the government 6 may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an 7 executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final 8 order of removal; 9 6. Given petitioner’s pro se status, respondents are directed to file, within seven days of 10 | the date of this order a status report addressing petitioner’s status; 11 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the Golden State Annex with a copy of this 12 | order; and 13 8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close this 14 || case. 15 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. : 1s | Dated: _April 17, 2026 _ RUC Dena Coggins 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28