Case Activity (1017)

1. Response | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 (HC) Carrillo-Omana v. Lyons et al

   Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee | California Eastern

   Objections to Findings and Recommendations

   OBJECTIONS to FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS 15 by Respondents Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Minga Wofford. (Zaidi, Imi)

2. Motion | Filed: July 28, 2026 | Entered: July 28, 2026 (HC) Carrillo-Omana v. Lyons et al

   Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee | California Eastern

   Findings and Recommendations

   FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text only) signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 7/28/2026: After petitioner initiated this action, the court granted injunctive relief by way of ordering petitioner's release. (ECF No. 9 .) Still pending is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(ECF No. 1 ) and respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8 ). The primary dispute between the parties is whether re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights. I have addressed this issue previously and have consistently found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates a noncitizen's due process rights. See, e.g., Amarillo v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-1623-JDP, 2026 WL 279856 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026). After considering the parties' filings, and for the reasons stated in Amarillo and similar cases, I find that petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated and hereby RECOMMEND the following: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1 , be GRANTED; (2) the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8 , be DENIED; (3) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 9 , be made permanent; and (4) the Clerk of Court be ordered to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk NAC)

3. 1015 additional result(s)