(HC) Gunes v. Chestnut 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
BERITAN GUNES,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:26-cv-00080-JLT-SAB (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AS MOOT, DENYING
RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS,
DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE
PETITIONER WITH BOND HEARING
BEFORE IMMIGRATION JUDGE, AND
DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE
CASE
(Docs. 1, 2, 10, 12)
Petitioner is 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 28, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted, Petitioner’s motion for
preliminary injunction be denied as moot, Respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition be denied,
and Respondents be directed to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration
judge. (Doc. 12.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on the parties and notified
them that any objections were due in 14 days. (Id. at 8.) The Court further warned the parties
Case 1:26-cv-00080-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 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
2
“that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court’s order.” (Id. at 8–9 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)).) To
date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.
According to 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, the Court concludes the findings and
recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.1 Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 28, 2026 (Doc. 12) are
ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.
3. Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot.
4. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
5. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Respondents are DIRECTED to
provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge
where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
flight risk or a danger to the community to justify her detention. If Respondents fail to
provide a bond hearing within 14 days (or by any alternative date agreed to by
Petitioner), Respondents SHALL IMMEDIATELY RELEASE PETITIONER.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2026
1 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability is not required because this is an order
dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and not a final order in a habeas
proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole
Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th Cir. 1997).
Case 1:26-cv-00080-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 2