Manuel Perez v. David Marin, Warden

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-01241
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 MANUEL PEREZ, Case No. 5:26-cv-01241-SB-KES

12 Petitioner,

13 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 DAVID MARIN, Warden,

15 Respondent.

18 This Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) is submitted to the Honorable

19 Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of

20 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for 21 the Central District of California. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On March 16, 2026, Perez Manuel (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for 24 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (“Petition” at Dkt. 1.) The Petition 25 alleged: 26 I am being subjected to immigration detention without any due 27 process and with no deportation [in] the foreseeable future (I am 28 1 Cuban)[.] … [T]hey have not taken or identified what concrete 2 step[s] ICE has taken to process any travel document which Cuba 3 will not issue. … The government fail[ed] to follow non- 4 discretionary, statutory, and due process requirements when [they]: 5 (1) [re-]detained [Petitioner, who was previously] released on 6 supervision; (2) [sought] removal of [Petitioner] to a third country not 7 included in his removal order; [and] (3) [held Petitioner in an] 8 extended amount of time on detention (over 9 months) which is 9 ample time to have effected deportation. 10 (Pet. at 6.) The Petition requested the following relief: 11 1. Order Respondent[] to immediately release [Petitioner] from custody. 12 2. Enjoin Respondent from re-detainment under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(b) 13 unless and until Respondents obtain a travel document for removal; 14 3. Enjoin Respondent[] from removing [Petitioner] to any country other 15 than Cuba, without a written notice to [Petitioner’s] counsel and 16 [Petitioner] in a language that [Petitioner] can understand. 17 4. Enjoin Respondent from re-detaining [Petitioner] without first 18 following all procedures set forth in 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(c), 241.13(i), 19 and any other applicable statutory and regulatory procedures. 20 5. Order that Respondent provide the Court and counsel with at least two 21 days’ notice prior to any removal from California. 22 (Pet. at 7.) 23 On March 25, 2026, the Court appointed attorney Michael Gomez as counsel 24 for Petitioner under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). (Dkt. 7.) The Court ordered 25 Respondent to respond to the Petition by March 27, 2026. (Dkt. 5.) Respondent 26 timely filed a response, which states, “ The Court … ordered Respondent to file a 27 response to the TRO Application [sic]…. The Respondent is not presenting an 28 opposition argument at this time.” (Dkt. 10.) 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Because Respondent has presented no opposition argument, Respondent 3 appears to be conceding that there is no significant likelihood of Petitioner’s 4 removal to Cuba and/or a third country in the reasonably foreseeable future. See 5 generally 8 C.F.R. § 241.13; Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Ordering 6 Petitioner’s release from custody (see Pet. at 7 ¶ 1) is therefore appropriate. 7 It is not clear from the present briefing whether the Court can grant the other 8 relief sought in the Petition (see Pet. at 7 ¶¶ 2-5). Per the deadlines set forth below, 9 Petitioner’s newly appointed counsel should file a supplemental memorandum of 10 law supporting that relief or file a notice of voluntary dismissal if Petitioner is no 11 longer seeking that relief. 12 Because Respondents have indicated that they have no opposition argument, 13 they have waived the objections period. Cf. Tripati v. Drake, 908 F.2d 977 (9th 14 Cir. 1990) (“Tripati argues the district court failed to afford him 10 days to object 15 to the magistrate’s recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)…. The 16 district court, however, need not afford the parties the full amount of time allotted 17 in the statute. Ten days is a maximum not a minimum.”) (citing United States v. 18 Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 955 (1978)). 19 III. RECOMMENDATION 20 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue an 21 Order ruling as follows: 22 1. The R&R is accepted and approved. 23 2. The Petition is granted in part. 24 3. Respondent shall immediately release Petitioner from custody and file 25 a status report within 3 days confirming that he has been released. 26 4. Within 7 days, Petitioner shall file either (a) a notice of voluntary 27 dismissal of the Petition, or (b) a supplemental memorandum of law 28 supporting the additional relief requested in the Petition. Any 1 supplemental memorandum of law should address the following 2 issues (as well as any other issues Petitioner believes appropriate): 3 e Can the Court order the other forms of injunctive relief sought 4 in the Petition (e.g., ordering the government not to re-detain 5 Petitioner except under certain conditions) even though the only 6 Respondent named in the Petition appears to be identified as the 7 warden of the Adelanto facility where Petitioner is detained? 8 Should Petitioner be granted leave to amend the Petition to add 9 other Respondents? 10 e Is it appropriate for the Court to order that the government not 11 re-detain Petitioner unless they have travel documents in hand? 12 Can the government show that his removal is reasonably 13 foreseeable without travel documents in hand? 14 5. The case is referred back to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for 15 further proceedings. Toons. Set 17 | DATED: March 31, 2026 Mow 6. 18 KAREN E. SCOTT 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28