Luis Juarez Moreno v. Warden of the California City 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 LUIS JUAREZ MORENO No. 1:26-cv-04291-TLN-SCR (A262-397-076) 12 Petitioner, 13 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY 15 DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee representing himself in this habeas corpus 19 action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenges his ongoing detention. This action 20 was referred to the undersigned by operation of Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 On June 9, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to file an answer to the § 2241 petition 22 within 7 days. ECF No. 7. Respondents have failed to file an answer within the time provided or 23 request an extension of time to do so. The Court construes the failure to file an answer as a lack 24 of opposition to granting the habeas petition. See, e.g., Local Rule 230(c) ; see also Hall v. 25 Mortg. Invs. Grp., 2011 WL 4374995, *5 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“Plaintiff does not oppose 26 Defendants’ arguments regarding the statute of limitations in his Opposition. Plaintiff's failure to 27 oppose ... on this basis serves as a concession[.]”); Singh v. Chiang, No. ED CV 25-3024 FMO 28 (SP), 2025 WL 4058328 *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2025) (construing the failure to address an 1 argument as conceding the argument). Based on this lack of opposition, the undersigned 2 recommends granting the § 2241 petition. 3 Even reviewing the merits of the § 2241 application demonstrates that Petitioner is 4 entitled to relief. The undisputed record in this case demonstrates that Petitioner is a native and 5 citizen of Mexico who entered the United States on or about February 2009 without being 6 inspected by immigration officials. Since that time, he has married a U.S. citizen and had five 7 U.S. citizen children with his wife. He was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement 8 on or about April 29, 2026. He remains detained at the California City Detention Facility located 9 in this judicial district. During his detention, an immigration judge denied him a bond after 10 concluding that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner challenges his 11 ongoing detention on the basis that it violates the Fifth Amendment due process clause. 12 Considering all of these factors, and consistent with the analysis in Lepe v. Andrews, 801 13 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1111-1118 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting cases), which the undersigned 14 incorporates and adopts herein, the court finds that Petitioner is not subject to mandatory 15 detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and that his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due 16 process was violated based on his detention without a bond hearing. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be granted on the merits 19 and on the basis of any lack of opposition thereto. 20 2. Respondents be ordered to immediately release Petitioner LUIS JUAREZ MORENO 21 (A262-397-076) from their custody. 22 3. At the time of release, Respondents be required to return all of Petitioner’s documents 23 and possessions. 24 4. The Clerk is directed to serve the California City Detention Facility with any order 25 for release. 26 5. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) 27 days of notice to Petitioner and provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration 28 judge at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a 1 | flight risk or danger to the community such that his re-detention is warranted. 2 6. Any final order entered in this case not address the circumstances in which 3 || Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final 4 | order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal. 5 7. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and to close this case. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within three days after 8 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 9 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. The undersigned finds that a shortened objection period 10 | is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at issue as well as the fact that the parties 11 | have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in written briefs. See United States v. 12 | Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets 13 | the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see also Local Rule 304(b). The parties 14 || are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 15 | the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 | DATED: June 30, 2026 17

” SEAN C. RIORDAN 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28