Dumelky Metelus v. Christopher Chestnut, Warden for California City Immigration Processing Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DUMELKY METELUS (A-Number: 244- No. 1:26-cv-04502-KES-SAB (HC) 604-215), 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT 10 OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REQUIRING v. IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, Warden for Doc. 1 12 California City Immigration Processing Center, 13 Respondent. 14 15 16 Petitioner Dumelky Metelus is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ 17 of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 2. The Court has 18 previously addressed the legal issues raised by ground two of the petition. See, e.g., R.A.N.O. v. 19 Wofford, 820 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2026); Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1098 20 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 21 3145562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025). 22 The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition and ordered respondent to show cause as 23 to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s 24 prior orders and that would justify denying the petition. Doc. 7. Respondent did not identify 25 whether the Court’s prior orders were distinguishable.1 See Doc. 8. While respondent opposes 26 the petition, he does not raise any new arguments. See id. at 1–7. 27 1 Respondent notes that petitioner was arrested on state charges in Florida but recognizes that the 28 alleged “offenses were deemed nolle prosequi.” Doc. 8 at 2. ] As respondent has not made any new legal arguments and has not identified any pertinent 2 | factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in 3 | RAN.O. v. Wofford, 820 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2026), Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, 815 F. Supp. 4 | 3d 1098 (E.D. Cal. 2025), and Ramazan M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01356-KES-SKO (HC), 5 | 2025 WL 3145562 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025), the petition for writ of habeas corpus is 6 | GRANTED as to ground two, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders.” 7 Respondent is ORDERED to release petitioner Dumelky Metelus (A-Number: 244-604- 8 | 215) immediately. Respondent is ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner 9 | unless he demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing 10 | before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such 11 | that his physical custody is legally justified. 12 Respondent is ORDERED to provide petitioner with a copy of this Order upon his release. 13 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for petitioner. The 14 || Clerk is directed to serve California City Detention Center with a copy of this Order. 15 16 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 17 Dated: _ June 28, 2026 4h | | ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Qe. aod ? The Court need not address the other grounds for petitioner’s challenge as petitioner is entitled 28 | to the relief he seeks based on the Court’s ruling on ground two.