govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03122-1

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 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
LUCILO VAZQUEZ-REYES, A-074-661-
360, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY 
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 
Respondent. 
No. 1:26-cv-03122-DC-AC (HC) 
 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
(ECF No. 6) 
 
 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding [pro se. through counsel], filed this 
application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 May 27, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 
were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 
recommendations were to be filed within seven days. ECF No. 6. Respondents filed objections 
to the findings and recommendations, stating they object “for the reasons stated in its Opposition” 
to the petition. ECF No. 7. Those arguments were already addressed by the magistrate judge in 
this case and the undersigned in other cases. Specifically, this court has found that a noncitizen 
who has lived in the United States for an extended period of time without having been admitted is 
subject to discretionary detention during removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 

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 
 
 
is entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing under that section. See Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 
1:26-cv-01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (granting injunctive relief 
of immediate release for noncitizen who was detained by U.S. immigration authorities after living 
in the United States for over twenty years); Barajas Ortiz v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01167-DC-
SCR, 2026 WL 508419 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who had lived in United 
States for over 30 years); Acevedo Duran v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01108-DC-CSK, Doc. No. 11 
(E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who had lived in United States for approximately 
2–3 years); Zuniga Cruz v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01818-DC-EFB, 2026 WL 890471 (E.D. Cal. 
Mar. 31, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition as to the 
petitioner’s Immigration and Nationality Act claim where the petitioner lived in the United States 
for eight years before his detention); Mendez Juarez v. Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center, 
No. 1:26-cv-02045-DC-CSK, Doc. Nos. 1, 14 (same as to noncitizen who lived in United Stats 
for approximately four years); Calle-Brito v. Santacruz, No. 1:26-cv-02355-DC-CSK, Doc. Nos. 
1, 14 (same as to noncitizen who resided in United States for approximately 3.5 years); Jimenez 
Orellana v. Johnson, 1:26-cv-02960-DJC-SCR, Doc. Nos. 1, 9 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026) (same 
as to noncitizen who resided in United States for approximately 1–2 years); Rauda Molina v. 
Chestnut, 1:26-cv-01644-DJC-JDP, Doc. Nos. 1, 10 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026) (same as to 
noncitizen who resided in United States for approximately two years). Thus, Respondents’ 
objections do not provide a basis 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 (ECF No. 6) are ADOPTED; 
2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED, as 
follows: 
a. Respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE petitioner Lucilo Vazquez-

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 
 
 
Reyes, A-074-661-360, from custody. At the time of release, respondents 
must return all of petitioner’s documents and possessions; 
b. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining 
petitioner unless they provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
1236.1(c)(8) at which petitioner shall bear the burden of showing that he is 
not a flight risk or a risk to community safety; 
c. The 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. Within three days of the date of entry of this order, respondents shall file a notice 
of compliance confirming petitioner’s release; 
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve California City Immigration Processing 
Center with a copy of this Order. 
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for petitioner and close this 
case. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 8, 2026 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
Dena Coggins 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight