Hiuver Armando Castro Maradiaga v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility

Opinion

HIUVER ARMANDO CASTRO No. 1:26-cv-0880 DAD CSK MARADIAGA, Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX Respondent. Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 5, 2026, respondent filed a motion to dismiss alleging that petitioner is already pursuing habeas relief in Hiuver Armando Castro Maradiaga v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility, No. 1:25-cv-1779 DJC JDP (E.D. Cal.). (ECF No.7 at 1.) Petitioner did not file an opposition. The instant petition was filed with the court on February 2, 2026. As alleged by respondent, this court’s own records confirm that on December 8, 2025, petitioner filed a petition containing virtually identical allegations. (No. 1:25-cv-1779 DJC JDP).1 Due to the duplicative nature of the present action, respondent’s motion should be granted, and this case be dismissed. 1 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be granted. 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to terminate all pending motions, and close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days of the date of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 6, 2026 A aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE } /1/mara0880.23.imm