(HC) A.A. v. Andrews et al

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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
A.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
TONYA ANDREWS, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:25-cv-01782 JLT SAB (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, DIRECTING
RESPONDENT TO IMMEDIATELY
RELEASE PETITIONER, AND SETTING
FURTHER BRIEFING SCHEDULE
(Docs. 2, 14)
Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 7, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that the motion for preliminary injunction be granted and Respondents be directed
to immediately release Petitioner on the conditions of his prior release from custody. (Doc. 14.)
On January 20, 2026, Respondents filed timely objections. (Doc. 15.) On January 22, 2026,
Petitioner filed a reply to the objections. (Doc. 16.)
According to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de
novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Respondents’
objections, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record

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
and proper analysis.1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 7, 2026 (Doc. 14) are
ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
3. Respondent is directed to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner on the conditions
of his prior release from custody until DHS proves to a neutral adjudicator by clear
and convincing evidence that re-detention is necessary to prevent danger to the
community or flight.
4. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for consideration of the merits
of the petition.
5. The Court sets the following briefing schedule, which may be modified by the
magistrate judge as needed. Respondents may file a further brief on the merits of the
habeas petition within 45 days. Alternatively, as soon as it can within that 30-day
period, Respondents may file a notice that they do not intend to file further briefing. If
Respondents file an additional brief, Petitioner may file a further brief within 30 days
thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 2026
1 Crucially, Respondents have not disputed Petitioner’s assertion that he was compliant with the terms of
his release. Though Petitioner indicated that “once, an officer told [him] he had missed a home visit,”
(Doc. 2 at 10), Petitioner claims to have spoken with his case manager about that one incident and was told
it was “okay.” (Id.) Respondents have offered no further details or any indication that the missed visit was
recorded by ICE as a violation, nor do they take the position that this missed visit justifies Petitioner’s
detention. As the magistrate judge noted: “Respondents do not argue that Petitioner’s re-detention was
based on any violations of his conditions of release or that Petitioner is now considered a flight risk or
danger to the community.” (Doc. 14 at 13.) Respondents’ objections do not take issue with that finding.
(See Doc. 15.) On this record, the Court finds immediate release is warranted.