(HC) Chavez Mancia v. Warden, California City Detention Facility

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LUIS ALONZO CHAVEZ MANCIA (A-
203-783-773),
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY
DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:26-cv-07652-DC-SCR (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 9)
Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee who filed this habeas corpus action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On October 7, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within three days. (Doc. No. 9.) On October 9,
2026, Respondents objected to the findings and recommendations “for the reasons stated in their
Answer.” (Doc. No. 10.) However, those arguments were addressed and rejected by the
magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned in other cases.
Specifically, the undersigned has found that the Due Process Clause requires that, in order
for the government to re-detain a noncitizen who has been previously released on bond or
Case 1:26-cv-07652-DC-SCR Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
conditional parole, or humanitarian parole, the government must provide a pre-deprivation bond
hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the noncitizen’s eligibility for bond must be considered.
See, e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) (granting motion
for temporary restraining order and immediate release of the petitioner based on his likelihood of
success on the merits of his due process claim); Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1113
(E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (same); D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026) (same); Altin v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00792-DC-CSK, 2026 WL
309563 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas
petition as to the petitioner’s due process claim). Thus, Respondents’ objections do not provide a
basis upon which to reject the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 7, 2026 (Doc. No. 9), are ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner Luis Alonzo Chavez Mancia’s (A-203-783-773) petition for a writ of habeas
corpus (Doc. No. 1), is GRANTED;
a. Petitioner shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from Respondents’ custody with
the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention in June
2026. Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as
electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-
deprivation/custody hearing;
b. Respondents shall RETURN all of Petitioner’s documents and possessions (e.g.,
identification, passport, work permit, Social Security card, etc.) upon his release
from custody;
c. Within three (3) days from the date of entry of this order, Respondents shall FILE
a notice of compliance with this court confirming that Petitioner has been released
Case 1:26-cv-07652-DC-SCR Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
in accordance with the above;
d. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven
(7) days’ notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before
a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered; and
e. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain
Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of
removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California City
Detention Facility; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-07652-DC-SCR Document 11 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3