Delgado v. Rokosky

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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Geovani Barrios Delgado,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Rokosky,
Respondent.
No. CV-26-01460-PHX-AMM
ORDER
On May 12, 2026, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this Court grant Petitioner Geovani Barrios
Delgado’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 9.) Judge
Boyle notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days to file any written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendation. (Id. at 18.) Neither party filed an objection, and
the time to do so has now passed.
A district court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is
not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
Committee Notes 1983 Addition. A district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 2:26-cv-01460-AMM Document 10 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 9), the parties’ briefs
(Docs. 1, 7), and the record. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings
and recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. 9.)
(2) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is
GRANTED as to Petitioner’s request for an individualized bond hearing. (Doc.
1.)
(3) Petitioner shall be provided an individualized bond hearing within seven (7)
days of the date of this Order. This bond hearing shall comply with the
procedural requirements set out in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.
2011). The government shall bear the burden of proving that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the
Immigration Judge should consider Petitioner’s financial situation and
alternative conditions of release. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th
Cir. 2017). In the alternative, the government may release Petitioner under
appropriate conditions of release.
(4) Petitioner shall be provided with adequate notice prior to the hearing.
(5) The government shall file a status report with the Court regarding the bond
hearing and whether the Petitioner was released within fourteen (14) days of
the date of this Order.
(6) The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
Dated this 27th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01460-AMM Document 10 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 2