govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03667-1

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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
AUDENCIO M.-M., 
(A-Number: 221-486-298), 
Petitioner, 
v. 
RON MURRAY, et al., 
Respondents. 
Case No. 1:26-cv-03667 JLT FJS (HC) 
 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART; 
GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 
HABEAS CORPUS; ORDERING 
RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE A BOND 
HEARING 
 
(Doc. 9) 
 
 
Petitioner Audencio M.-M, a federal immigration detainee, initiated this action by filing a 
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 12, 2026, while in 
custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Mesa Verde Detention Center. (Doc. 
1.) The current record indicates that Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who has resided in the 
United States for 20 years, has no criminal record, and has two U.S. Citizen children, one of 
whom has a serious heart condition that requires constant parental supervision. (Id., ¶¶ 2, 12, 13.) 
Petitioner encountered immigration officials for the first time on January 7, 2026, when he was 
detained by ICE. (Id., ¶¶ 2, 11.) 
On May 27, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant the 
Petition and order Petitioner’s immediate release. (Doc. 8.) The same day, Respondents filed 
boilerplate objections. (Doc. 9.) Petitioner filed a response on June 8, 2026. (Doc. 10.) 

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 
 
 
 
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 
case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and 
recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis in part. The Court concurs with 
the magistrate judge that habeas relief is warranted. However, the Court departs as to the 
appropriate remedy because Petitioner has not yet been formally evaluated by any immigration 
authority regarding his flight risk or danger to the community. For this reason, Petitioner’s 
circumstances are materially indistinguishable from other cases in which this Court has granted 
bond hearings to individuals who have resided in the United States for various periods of time 
without ever interacting with immigration officials prior to their challenged detention. See, e.g., 
R.P.V. v. Wofford, No. 1:26-CV-01010 JLT EPG (HC), 2026 WL 494748, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 
23, 2026); Lopez v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-01455-JLT-EPG, 2026 WL 640887, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 
Mar. 6, 2026). In addition, the Court will require Respondents to comply with the procedures 
articulated in Chubb v. Current or Acting Field Off. Dir., San Francisco Field Off., United States 
Immigr. & Customs Enf't, No. 1:26-CV-03251 JLT EPG (HC), 2026 WL 1506858, at *1 (E.D. 
Cal. May 29, 2026) (citing Garcia De Melo v. Stamper, No. 1:26-CV-00152-JAW, 2026 WL 
925672, at *5 (D. Me. Apr. 6, 2026)), because there is no evidence that Respondents have yet 
obtained an administrative warrant or provided Petitioner any kind of initial custody 
determination.1Thus, the Court ORDERS: 
1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 8) issued on May 27, 2026, are ADOPTED 
IN PART. 
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. 
3. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED. 
4. Within 48 hours of this order, Respondents SHALL undertake an initial custody 
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at which point they may either release 
Petitioner or continue his detention if deemed appropriate. 
5. Thereafter, if Petitioner is not released, and no arrest warrant has been issued, 
 
1 The Court notes that Respondents fail to rebut Petitioner’s assertion (Doc. 1, ¶ 18) that he is not a danger to the 
community or a flight risk. 

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 
 
 
 
Respondents SHALL immediately seek an arrest warrant. If the warrant is not 
granted, Respondents SHALL immediately release Petitioner. If a warrant is granted, 
within 10 days of the initial custody determination, Respondents SHALL provide 
Petitioner with a bond hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) at which the 
parties will be allowed to present evidence and argument about whether Petitioners are 
a danger to the community and present a flight risk if not detained. 
6. At least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, the Petitioner SHALL receive notice 
of the hearing. He SHALL have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, 
and he SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing. If counsel has filed an appearance 
in the immigration proceedings, at least 72 hours before the hearing, counsel SHALL 
receive notice of the scheduled hearing. If Respondents fail to provide the bond 
hearing within the timeframe outlined above, they SHALL release Petitioner. 
7. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining 
Petitioner unless Respondents provide no less than seven days’ notice to Petitioner and 
hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 
1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond is 
considered.2 
8. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the Mesa Verde Detention Center with a copy 
of this Order and to CLOSE THE CASE. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Dated: June 10, 2026 
 
 
2 If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without notice in advance, a post -deprivation hearing consistent 
with the requirements set forth here SHALL be provided within seven days of the arrest. Alternatively, if Petitioner 
becomes subject to a final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of such order, Respondents may detain 
Petitioner for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal. In this event, Respondent’s SHALL provide a bond 
hearing in the timeframe required by law. 

Passage view · GavelSight