(HC) Guadamuz Lopez v. Warden, Central Valley Annex

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
OSCAR JAVIER GUADAMUZ LOPEZ
(A-232-656-656),
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CENTRAL VALLEY
ANNEX, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:26-cv-07281-DC-JDP (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 7)
Petitioner, a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se, has filed this application for
a writ of habeas corpus 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 5, 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. 7.) On October 7,
2026, Respondents objected to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation of release
“for the reasons set forth in their reply.” (Doc. No. 8.) Respondents further asserted that:
Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Diaz v.
Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022), found that this statute provides adequate process;
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) entitles noncitizens only to a post-deprivation bond hearing; changed
Case 1:26-cv-07281-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4

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
circumstances arose from Petitioner’s recent arrest that warranted detaining him without prior
notice or a pre-deprivation hearing; and the facts of this case cannot support a successful due
process challenge. (Id.) 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
conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5),
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).
Moreover, Respondents neither argue nor explain why Petitioner’s criminal history
renders inapplicable this court’s previous determination that noncitizens previously released into
the United States are entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before they can be re-detained.
The undersigned is unpersuaded that a mere mention of Petitioner’s recent arrest for a
misdemeanor (see Doc. Nos. 5 at 1; 5-4 at 4–5, 8 at 1) which the criminal justice system is
managing through ongoing criminal proceedings (see Doc. No. 5-1 at 3) is sufficient to explain
why Petitioner was not entitled to due process before his immigration detention. See Yi Yang v.
Warden, Cent. Valley Annex, No. 1:26-cv-07250-DC-AC, 2026 WL 2982933, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Oct. 5, 2026) (finding that release was appropriate for noncitizen detained without pre-
deprivation bond hearing where the government “provide[d] the court with no argument as to
how [the petitioner’s criminal history] has any bearing on this case or the government’s act of
detaining Petitioner” pursuant to § 1226(a)); Lucas-Roblero v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-06366-DC-
Case 1:26-cv-07281-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4

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
CKD, Doc. No. 7 (E.D. Cal. Aug 13, 2026) (ordering immediate release for the petitioner where
the respondents made no argument as to the implications, if any, of the petitioner’s alleged
arrest).
Lastly, this court has held that a post-deprivation bond hearing cannot suffice as a post
hoc cure for an earlier constitutional violation stemming from the government’s failure to provide
notice and a pre-deprivation bond hearing before revoking a noncitizen’s government-sanctioned
liberty. See Oliveira Tinoco v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-05505-DC-CKD (HC), 2026 WL 2949219,
at *4–6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2026) (rejecting the respondents’ suggestion that Rodriguez Diaz, 53
F.4th 1189 foreclosed due process relief in cases where the government seized “a person after
years of government-sanctioned liberty without affording any prior process,” and ordering that
the petitioner be returned to the status quo ante litem) (citation modified). Thus, Respondents’
objections provide no 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 5, 2026 (Doc. No. 7), are ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner Oscar Javier Guadamuz Lopez’s (A-232-656-656) 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 July 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;
Case 1:26-cv-07281-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4

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
4
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 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 Central Valley
Annex 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 8, 2026	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-07281-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4