Walfreth Eduardo Aldana-Lopez v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALFRETH EDUARDO ALDANA- No. 1:26-cv-01084-DAD-SCR LOPEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, 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 Department of Homeland Security premised upon either an explicit or implicit finding that he was 22 not dangerous or a flight risk. While on release, petitioner did not commit any crimes, materially 23 complied with conditions of release and petitioner is not subject to a final order of removal. 24 Considering all of these factors, and consistent with the Court’s rulings in F.S.S.M. v. Wofford, 25 No. 1:25-cv-01518-TLN-AC, 2025 WL 3526671 at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Gutierrez v. 26 Chesnut, No. 1:25-CV-01515-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3514495 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025) and 27 R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 2686866, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28 18, 2025) (“R.D.T.M. II”), the court finds that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to procedural 1 due process was violated by his redetention without a pre-deprivation hearing. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be granted on both 4 count one and count two. 5 2. Respondents be required to immediately release petitioner and to not impose any 6 additional restrictions on him, unless they are determined to be necessary at a future pre- 7 deprivation/custody hearing. 8 3. At the time of release, respondents be required to return all of petitioner’s documents 9 and possessions. 10 4. If the government seeks to redetain petitioner, they must comply with constitutional 11 protections and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthoirzation Act of 2008, including notice 12 and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker where placement in the least 13 restrictive setting available is considered after taking into account petitioner’s danger to self, 14 danger to the community, and risk of flight. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B). 15 5. Respondents be directed to file a notice of compliance with the provisions of any order 16 entered in this case. 17 6. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment for petitioner and to close this case. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after 20 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 21 the court and serve a copy on all parties. The undersigned finds that a shortened objection period 22 is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at issue as well as the fact that the parties 23 have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in written briefs. See United States v. 24 Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets 25 the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see also Local Rule 304(b). The parties 26 are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 27 the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 ///// 1 || Dated: February 26, 2026 2

4 SEAN C. RIORDAN 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28