Jose Luis Murillo v. Warden, Mesa Verde ICE Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS MURILLO, Case No. 1:26-cv-01691-KES-SAB-HC

Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE WARDEN, MESA VERDE ICE PETITIONER WITH BOND HEARING DETENTION FACILITY, et al., (ECF No. 18) Respondents. Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. I. Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in or around October 1985 when he was approximately six years old and has lived in the United States for approximately forty years. On January 10, 2006, Petitioner was convicted on multiple counts of second-degree robbery and attempted robbery with firearm enhancements and reckless driving. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment term of thirty-four years and four months, and he served approximately twenty years. Petitioner was released to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody upon the conclusion of his sentence on November 13, 2025. (ECF No. 18 at 5–6.1) Petitioner has remained in detention. On May 22, 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner’s applications for relief and ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. (ECF No. 19-1.) Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that is still pending. See Executive Office of Immigration Review, Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited Aug. 13, 2026). On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) On May 1, 2026, Respondents filed a response. (ECF No. 8.) On May 15, 2026, the Court granted the Federal Defender’s amicus motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 10.) On June 3, 2026, Petitioner filed a first amended petition (“FAP”) challenging his immigration detention on due process grounds. (ECF No. 18.) On June 4, 2026, Respondents filed a response. (ECF No. 19.) On June 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 20.) II. A. Overview of Caselaw Regarding Immigration Detention Statutes An intricate statutory scheme governs the detention of noncitizens during removal proceedings and after a final removal order is issued. “Where an alien falls within this statutory scheme can affect whether his detention is mandatory or discretionary, as well as the kind of review process available to him if he wishes to contest the necessity of his detention.” Prieto- Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). “Four statutes grant the Government authority to detain noncitizens who have been placed in removal proceedings: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) (‘Section 1225(b)’), 1226(a) (‘Subsection A’), 1226(c) (‘Subsection C’), and 1231(a) (‘Section 1231(a)’).” Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 529 (9th Cir. 2023). “Subsection A is the default detention statute for noncitizens in removal proceedings and applies to noncitizens ‘[e]xcept as provided in [Subsection C].’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). “[D]etention under Subsection A is discretionary” and “provides for release on bond or conditional parole.” Id. “Subsection C provides for the detention of ‘criminal aliens’ and states that ‘[t]he Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who’ is deportable or inadmissible based on a qualifying, enumerated Subsection C is mandatory,” and “[r]elease under Subsection C is limited to certain witness protection purposes.” Avilez, 69 F.4th at 530. “Section 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a final order of removal” and “governs detention during a ninety-day ‘removal period’ after the conclusion of removal proceedings.” Id. at 530–31. “[I]n a series of decisions since 2001, ‘the Supreme Court and [the Ninth Circuit] have grappled in piece-meal fashion with whether the various detention statutes may authorize indefinite or prolonged detention of detainees and, if so, may do so without providing a bond hearing.’” Rodriguez v. Robbins (Rodriguez II), 715 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Rodriguez v. Hayes (Rodriguez I), 591 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010)). In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), two noncitizens, who had been ordered removed but whose removal could not be effectuated due to lack of a repatriation treaty or because their designated countries refused to accept them, challenged their prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), which governs detention beyond the ninety-day removal period. Applying the canon of constitutional avoidance because a “statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem,” the Supreme Court “read an implicit limitation into” § 1231(a)(6) and held that the statute “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689. Thus, “after a presumptively reasonable six-month period of post-removal period detention, the alien was entitled to release if he successfully demonstrated that there was ‘good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.’” Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1062 (quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). In Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), the Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Demore distinguished Zadvydas by emphasizing detention under § 1226(c) has a “definite termination point” and “in the majority of the cases it lasts for less than the 90 days we considered presumptively valid in Zadvydas.” Id. at 529 (noting that “in 85% of the cases in which aliens are detained pursuant to § 1226(c), removal proceedings are completed in an average time of 47 days and a median of 30 days” and “[i]n the Board of Immigration Appeals, appeal takes an average of four months, with a median time that is slightly shorter”).2 However, Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion, which created the majority rejecting the facial challenge to mandatory detention under § 1226(c), specifically noted that “a lawful permanent resident alien such as respondent could be entitled to an individualized determination as to his risk of flight and dangerousness if the continued detention became unreasonable or unjustified.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring). In the Rodriguez class action, noncitizens “challenge[d] their prolonged detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c), and 1231(a) without individualized bond hearings and determinations to justify their continued detention.” Rodriguez v. Robbins (Rodriguez III), 804 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). In Rodriguez II, to avoid constitutional concerns, the Ninth Circuit held that mandatory detention under § 1226(c) and § 1225(b) is implicitly time-limited and expires after six months. Thereafter, the government’s authority to detain shifts to § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing governed by the procedural requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011).3 Rodriguez II, 715 F.3d at 1138–44. In Rodriguez III, the Ninth Circuit held that for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c), “the government must provide periodic bond hearings every six months so that noncitizens may challenge their continued detention as ‘the period of . . . confinement grows.’” Rodriguez III, 804 F.3d at 1089 (quoting Diouf v. Napolitano (Diouf II), 634 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011)).

2 “Thirteen years after the decision in Demore, the government admitted that the figures it provided to the Court, and which the Court relied on, contained ‘several significant errors.’” Rodriguez v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv-04187-TSH, 2019 WL 7491555, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (citations omitted). Although the “Supreme Court had inferred from the government’s brief in Demore that in cases in which the alien appeals, the time of detention was ‘about five months,’” the government’s 2016 letter clarified that for years 1999–2001, the “length of detention in cases where the alien appealed [was] 382 days, or a little more than a year.” Id. (citations omitted).

[I]n cases in which an appeal was filed, in most years the average length of detention was more than 300 days, or more than double the five-month estimate the Court relied on in Demore. The data from the Jennings case show that 460 members of the respondent section 1226(c) subclass were detained for an average of 427 days (over fourteen months) with some individual detention periods exceeding four years. Indeed, when the GAO conducted a study, it found that as of 2015, the median length of time it takes the BIA to complete an appeal of a removal order exceeds 450 days. Rodriguez, 2019 WL 7491555, at *5 (citations omitted). 3 In Singh, the Ninth Circuit provided guidance as to the procedural requirements for the bond hearings. Specifically, “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond.” Singh, 638 F.3d at 1208. Due process also requires a contemporaneous In Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), the Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation that §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) included “an implicit 6–month time limit on the length of mandatory detention” and reversed Rodriguez III, holding that the Ninth Circuit misapplied the constitutional avoidance canon to find a statutory right under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to “periodic bond hearings every six months in which the Attorney General must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alien’s continued detention is necessary.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 296, 304, 306. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit “to consider [the] constitutional arguments on their merits.” Id. at 312. The Ninth Circuit, in turn, remanded the case to the district court to consider the constitutional arguments in the first instance, but noted that it had “grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so.” Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 255, 256 (9th Cir. 2018). Following Jennings, the Ninth Circuit upheld the “construction of § 1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing before an IJ after six months of detention for an alien whose release or removal is not imminent” with the government “bear[ing] a clear and convincing burden of proof at such a bond hearing to justify an alien’s continued detention.” Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, 955 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court reversed on other grounds, Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 546 (2022), and “[i]n a companion case decided that same day arising from the Third Circuit, Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, [596] U.S. [573], 142 S. Ct. 1827, 213 L.Ed.2d 125 (2022), the Supreme Court separately rejected [the Ninth Circuit’s] statutory interpretation in Aleman Gonzalez,” Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1201 (9th Cir. 2022), holding that “there is no plausible construction of the text of § 1231(a)(6) that requires the Government to provide bond hearings before immigration judges after six months of detention, with the Government bearing the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a detained noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community,” Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. at 581. Arteaga-Martinez declined to reach the constitutional claims. Id. at 583. “[A]fter the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jennings and Arteaga-Martinez, it remain[ed] undetermined whether the Due Process Clause requires additional bond procedures under any immigration detention statute” until the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez Diaz, which concerned a petitioner detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) who sought a second bond hearing before an IJ at which the government would bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th at 1201, 1193. The Ninth Circuit held that “due process does not require the procedures Rodriguez Diaz would have us impose” because “Section 1226(a) offers substantial procedural protections to detained persons, and Rodriguez Diaz has not shown that these procedures violate due process, either facially or as applied.” Id. B. Procedural Due Process Here, Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to take a position on whether due process requires a bond hearing for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the First, Second, and Third Circuits have found that “the Due Process Clause imposes some form of ‘reasonableness’ limitation upon the duration of detention . . . under [section 1226(c)].” Reid v. Donelan, 17 F.4th 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2021) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). Accord Black, 103 F.4th at 138 (“conclud[ing] that a noncitizen’s constitutional right to due process precludes his unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) without a bond hearing”); German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 209–10 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that after Demore and Jennings, petitioners detained pursuant to § 1226(c) can still bring as-applied challenges to their detention and that due process affords them a bond hearing once detention becomes unreasonable). Contra Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928 (8th Cir. 2024). Additionally, “essentially all district courts that have considered the issue agree that prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, ‘will—at some point—violate the right to due process.’” Martinez v. Clark, No. C18-1669-RAJ-MAT, 2019 WL 5968089, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019) (citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 5962685 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2019). Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends finding that unreasonably prolonged mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) without an individualized bond hearing violates due process. The Court now turns to whether Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged such that due process requires a bond hearing. Courts in this circuit have taken various approaches to determining whether procedural due process requires a bond hearing in a particular case. See Rodriguez v. Nielsen, No. 18-cv- 04187-TSH, 2019 WL 7491555, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (six-month bright-line rule in § 1226(c) context); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1117 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (six- factor test that considers “(1) the total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) the conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order of removal” in § 1225(b) context); Juarez v. Wolf, No. C20-1660-RJB-MLP, 2021 WL 2323436, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2021) (eight- factor test that considers “whether the detention will exceed the time the petitioner spent in prison for the crime that made him [or her] removable” and “the nature of the crimes the petitioner committed” in addition to the six factors set forth above in § 1226(c) context (alteration in original)), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 2322823 (W.D. Wash. June 7, 2021); Henriquez v. Garland, No. 5:22-cv-00869-EJD, 2022 WL 2132919, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) (applying Mathews v. Eldridge test to petitioner’s due process claim requesting initial bond hearing in § 1226(c) context). This Court previously found that “[t]o determine whether § 1226(c) detention has become unreasonable, the Court will look to the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (noting Mathews factors more suited to determining whether due process requires a second bond hearing and rejecting other multi-factor tests). The Court will apply the three Lopez factors. /// 1. Total Length of Detention to Date Petitioner has been in immigration detention for approximately nine months since November 2025. Courts have found shorter and similar lengths of mandatory immigration detention without a bond hearing to be unreasonable. See, e.g., Black, 103 F.4th at 137–38 (affirming district court judgment ordering bond hearing for petitioner detained seven months); Perera v. Jennings, No. 21-cv-04136-BLF, 2021 WL 2400981 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2021) (granting TRO and ordering individualized bond hearing for petitioner detained almost two months); Sajous v. Decker, No. 18-CV-2447 (AJN), 2018 WL 2357266, at *1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018) (granting preliminary injunction and ordering individualized bond hearing for petitioner detained more than eight months); Jarpa v. Mumford, 211 F. Supp. 3d 706, 710, 717 n.6 (D. Md. 2016) (granting habeas relief and ordering individualized bond hearing for petitioner detained nearly eleven months). Accordingly, the Court finds that the total length of detention factor weighs in favor of Petitioner. 2. Likely Duration of Future Detention “[A]s have nearly all the other courts to consider this issue . . . the starting point of the analysis is the length of detention—both how long the petitioner has been detained and how long the detention is likely to last.” Gonzalez, 2019 WL 330906, at *5 (emphasis added) (collecting cases). “When the alien’s removal proceedings are unlikely to end soon, this suggests that continued detention without a bond hearing is unreasonable.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211. Although future events are difficult to predict, the Court nevertheless finds that the pending appeal before the BIA and possible remand to the immigration court for further proceedings or possible judicial review by the Ninth Circuit will be sufficiently lengthy such that this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner. See German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212 (finding appeal of cancellation of removal order with the BIA “could take months” and potential review in the Third Circuit “would add months more in prison” such that “the likelihood that [petitioner’s] detention will continue strongly supports a finding of unreasonableness”); Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1119 (finding appeal of removal order with the BIA and review in the Ninth Circuit may 3. Delays in Removal Proceedings Caused by Petitioner and Government With respect to delays in the removal proceedings, Petitioner states: Petitioner timely attended all scheduled master calendar hearings and filed his I- 589 application on March 16, 2026. The hearing schedule reflects the court’s docket, not any dilatory conduct by Petitioner. The case has proceeded on a normal trajectory for a detained individual proceeding pro se on a complex fear- based claim. It should also be noted that Petitioner’s immigration history reflects not willful disregard for legal status, but rather a prolonged and ultimately frustrated effort to obtain lawful permanent residence through proper channels. His mother, Maria Teresa Murillo, filed an I-130 petition on his behalf when he was a minor, and Petitioner remained in the family preference queue for approximately twelve years awaiting visa availability. By the time his priority date became current and his visa was approved, Petitioner had surpassed the age of 21 and had aged out of the derivative beneficiary classification under which the petition had been filed. He was turned away when he attempted to retrieve his documents and was told he would need to begin the process anew—a process that would have required his mother to refile and Petitioner to wait an indeterminate number of additional years for a new priority date to become current. (ECF No. 18 at 11.) Respondents have not addressed this issue. Accordingly, the Court finds that the delay factor weighs in favor of Petitioner. 4. Weighing the Factors The Court appreciates that the government has a strong interest in enforcing immigration laws, ensuring the presence of noncitizens at their removal proceedings, and protecting the public from danger. However, the “government interest at stake here is not the continued detention of Petitioner, but the government’s ability to detain [Petitioner] without a bond hearing.” Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Off., No. 3:19-cv-01358-SB, 2020 WL 1862254, at *7 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2020) (emphasis added), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1855189 (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020). See Henriquez, 2022 WL 2132919, at *5 (“Although the Government has a strong interest in enforcing the immigration laws and in ensuring that lawfully issued removal orders are promptly executed, the Government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without providing an individualized bond hearing is low.”). On the other hand, it “is beyond dispute” that Petitioner’s interest here is “fundamental.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 993 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)). “Freedom from imprisonment— from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the date, “which is the most important factor,” Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1118,4 the likely duration of future detention, and delay factors all weigh in favor of finding continued detention unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court recommends finding that Petitioner’s continued detention has become unreasonable and Petitioner is entitled to relief on his procedural due process claim. C. Substantive Due Process Petitioner also appears to assert a substantive due process claim. “As an initial matter, the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979)). “A due process violation occurs when detention becomes punitive rather than regulatory, meaning there is no regulatory purpose that can rationally be assigned to the detention or the detention appears excessive in relation to its regulatory purpose.” United States v. Torres, 995 F.3d 695, 708 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747). “The point at which detention constitutes a due process violation requires a case-by-case analysis.” Torres, 995 F.3d at 708 (citing United States v. Gelfuso, 838 F.2d 358, 359–60 (9th Cir. 1988)). In Martinez Leiva v. Becerra, the petitioner raised a substantive due process claim, arguing that his detention had “become unconstitutionally punitive, as: (1) it does not serve any nonpunitive governmental interest because he is not a flight risk or danger to his community; (2) it is excessive in relation to any governmental interest; and (3) its duration exceeds the bounds of due process.” Martinez Leiva v. Becerra, No. 23-CV-02027-CRB, 2023 WL 3688097, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2023) (footnote omitted). The district court rejected the petitioner’s arguments, stating “that is what bond hearings are for.” Id. Similarly, here, Petitioner’s “argument that his detention has become punitive because he does not pose a risk of flight or a danger . . might be correct. But that is what bond hearings are for.” Id. (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Court recommends finding that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his substantive due process claim. D. Remedy “The Court finds, consistent with other post-Jennings cases, that the appropriate remedy is a bond hearing before an immigration judge[.]” Lopez, 631 F. Supp. 3d at 882. See Doe v. Becerra, 697 F. Supp. 3d 937, 948 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“[C]ourts in this Circuit have regularly found that the IJ is the proper authority to conduct bond hearings and determine a detainee’s risk of flight or dangerousness to the community.” (citing Martinez, 36 F.4th at 1223 (“district courts throughout this circuit have ordered immigration courts to conduct bond hearings for noncitizens held for prolonged periods”))); Mansoor v. Figueroa, No. 3:17-cv-01695-GPC (NLS), 2018 WL 840253, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2018) (“The Court finds the IJ is uniquely qualified and situated to make neutral administrative determinations about Petitioner’s eligibility for release on bond and/or placement in a supervised release program[.]”). The Court further finds that “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond” and that the bond hearing must comport with the other requirements of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating that “the BIA properly noted that the government bore the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Martinez is a danger to the community” with respect to a bond hearing ordered pursuant to the Due Process Clause). In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 1000. See Black, 103 F.4th at 138 (The district court “correctly directed the immigration judge (“IJ”), in setting his bond and establishing appropriate terms for his potential release, to consider his ability to pay and alternative means of assuring appearance.”). Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: ] 2. Respondents be ordered to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond,” id. at 1203. In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). 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)). 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le Dated: _ August 17, 2026 _ eee STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge