govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03239-2

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 
WILINTON MARTINEZ SANJUANELO 
(A-Number: 244-814-316), 
Petitioner, 
v. 
WARDEN, et al., 
Respondents. 
Case No. 1:26-cv-03239-DC-JDP (HC) 
 
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
(ECF No. 8) 
 Petitioner, an immigration detainee, has 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 26, 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 seven days. ECF No. 8. Respondents filed 
objections to the findings and recommendations, stating they object “for the reasons set forth in 
Respondents’ May 11, 2026 briefing.” ECF No. 9. Those arguments were already addressed by 
the magistrate judge in this case and 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), 

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 
 
 
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 Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-
DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (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, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 
(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, Doc. No. 8 (E.D. 
Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition as to the 
petitioner’s due process claim). Thus, Petitioner’s objections do not provide a basis upon which to 
reject the findings and recommendations. 
However, consistent with this court’s previous decisions, the court finds that requiring 
Respondents to provide a bond hearing, rather than immediately release Petitioner, is the 
appropriate relief under the circumstances of this case. Unlike the petitioner in Altin, who had 
been arrested but not charged with any criminal offenses and who was detained by immigration 
authorities seven months after his release from that arrest, here, Petitioner was detained 
immediately following his arrest and has criminal charges pending against him for assault and 
domestic violence. Thus, unlike in Altin, Respondents have provided a non-pretextual changed 
circumstance that may warrant revocation of Petitioner’s prior release. This court has previously 
found that where the government asserts a non-pretextual change in circumstance potentially 
warranting revocation of a non-citizen’s release, the proper remedy for the government’s failure 
to provide the petitioner with a pre-deprivation bond hearing is a post-deprivation bond hearing, 
not immediate release. See Calvillo v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00569-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 253627 
at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2026) (“[W]hile the court finds that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the 
merits of her claim that her re-detention without a bond hearing violated her right to due process, 
the court will order that the proper remedy for this violation is that Petitioner receive a post-
deprivation bond hearing in which Respondents must show, by clear and convincing evidence, 
that the alleged changed circumstances demonstrate that Petitioner is either a flight risk or threat 
to public safety, such that her detention is justified.”). 

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 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 May 26, 2026, ECF No. 8) are 
ADOPTED IN PART; 
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED as follows: 
a. Within fourteen (14) days, Respondents are ORDERED to provide 
Petitioner Wilinton Martinez Sanjuanelo (A-Number: 244-814-316) a bond 
hearing before an immigration judge at which the government shall bear 
the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is 
either a flight risk or risk to community safety such that Petitioner’s 
continued immigration detention is justified; and 
b. If Respondents fail to provide Petitioner a bond hearing within fourteen 
(14) days, Petitioner shall be immediately released from Respondents’ 
custody on the same terms as Petitioner’s previous release; 
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve California City Detention Facility with 
a copy of this order; and 
5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and close 
this case. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 8, 2026 
 
 
___________________________ 
Dena Coggins 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight