govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-00084-3

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 
 
 
 1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
VALENTIN AGUILAR RANGEL, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
No.  1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK 
 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN 
PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 
CORPUS, DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS, 
AND DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW 
AS COUNSEL 
(Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 22, 26) 
 
 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas 
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.  (Doc. No. 1.)  This matter was referred to a United States 
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 
 On August 12, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 
recommending that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) be granted in part 
and denied in part.  (Doc. No. 22.)  Specifically, the magistrate judge found that petitioner was 
entitled to the bond hearing previously ordered by the court (Doc. No. 8) in ruling on petitioner’s 
motion for a temporary restraining order.  (Doc. No. 22 at 11.)  The pending findings and 
recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 
were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service.  (Id.)  On August 18, 2026, respondents 
Case 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK     Document 27     Filed 09/29/26     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  
 
 
filed a notice of non-opposition to the findings and recommendations.  (Doc. No. 24.)  On 
September 15, 2026, petitioner filed a notice of non-compliance, which the court construes as 
objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.  (Doc. No. 25.)  Therein, 
petitioner argues that the bond hearing provided to him pursuant to the court’s prior order was 
deficient because although petitioner was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol, 
respondents confirmed that this was a case of mistaken identity.  (Id. at 1.)  The court finds that it 
is not within the court’s purview to second-guess the immigration judge’s findings in this regard.  
Miranda v. Hernandez, No. 2:26-cv-00906-JNW, 2026 WL 1328227, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 13, 
2026) (“The Court may determine whether the IJ applied the correct legal standard; it may not 
reweigh the evidence.”) (citation omitted).  These objections do not provide a basis upon which to 
reject the pending findings and recommendations. 
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 
de novo review of the case.  Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 
objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 
record and by proper analysis. 
 For the reasons above, 
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 12, 2026 (Doc. No. 22) are 
ADOPTED IN FULL; 
2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED IN 
PART AND DENIED IN PART, and no further relief beyond the relief previously 
granted by the court (Doc. No. 8) is ordered; 
3. Respondents’ opposition (Doc. No. 7), docketed as a motion, is DENIED; 
4. Petitioner counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED 
without prejudice to its renewal;1 and 
 
1  Petitioner’s counsel argues that petitioner’s repeated pro se filings evince a desire to proceed 
pro se or to retain other counsel.  (Doc. No. 26 at 3.)  Counsel does not detail any efforts to 
provide notice to petitioner of counsel’s motion, nor does counsel explain how these 
circumstances constitute an exception to the notice requirement of Local Rule 182(d).  Local Rule 
182(d) further requires that counsel provide petitioner’s “current or last known address or 
addresses” which counsel has not yet provided to the court. 
Case 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK     Document 27     Filed 09/29/26     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  
 
 
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER judgment in favor of petitioner and 
CLOSE this case.  
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:     September 28, 2026     
DALE A. DROZD 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
 
Case 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK     Document 27     Filed 09/29/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight