Julian Martinez Valencia v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 23, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00563
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIAN MARTINEZ VALENCIA, No. 1:26-cv-00563-DAD-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a writ of habeas corpus filed 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This action was referred to the undersigned by operation of Local 19 Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 The undisputed record in this case demonstrates that petitioner was released by the 21 government on April 17, 2018, premised upon either an explicit or implicit finding that he was 22 not dangerous or a flight risk. There is no evidence in the record that petitioner committed any 23 crimes or failed to materially comply with any conditions of release. Nor is petitioner subject to a 24 final order of removal. Considering these factors, and consistent with the court’s reasoning and 25 ruling in Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. 26 Dec. 9, 2025), the court finds that petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process 27 was violated by his redetention. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be granted on count one.1 3 2. Petitioner be released immediately from the respondents’ custody with the same 4 conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his redetention on January 3, 2026. 5 3. At the time of release, respondents be required to return all of petitioner’s documents 6 and possessions. 7 4. Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him unless that is 8 determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. 9 5. If the government seeks to redetain petitioner, it must provide no less than 7 days of 10 notice to petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which 11 petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered and where the Government shall bear the 12 burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner poses a danger to the 13 community or a flight risk. 14 6. Respondents be directed to file a notice of compliance with the provisions of any order 15 entered in this case. 16 7. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment for petitioner and to close this case. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after 19 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 20 the court and serve a copy on all parties. The undersigned finds that a shortened objection period 21 is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at issue as well as the fact that the parties 22 have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in written briefs. See United States v. 23 Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets 24 the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see also Local Rule 304(b). The parties 25 //// 26 //// 27 1 In the interests of judicial economy, any remaining claims in the § 2241 petition are not 28 addressed herein. 1 | are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 2 || the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || DATED: February 23, 2026 4

6 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28