(HC) Galan 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
ROBERTO ADONAY GALAN,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 2:26-cv-01283 JLT EPG (HC)
A-Number: 075-637-534
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DENYING RESPONDENTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS, DIRECTING
RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE PETITIONER
WITH BOND HEARING, AND DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE
(Docs. 1, 10, 13)
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. On July 30, 2026, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that
the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted, Respondents’ motion to dismiss be denied, and
Respondents be directed to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing. (Doc. 13.) The Court served
the findings and recommendations on the parties and notified them that any objections were due
in 14 days. (Id.) The Court further warned the parties “that failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id. at 13, 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.
/////
Case 2:26-cv-01283-JLT-EPG Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 3

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
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. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 30, 2026 (Doc. 13) are ADOPTED
IN FULL.
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.
3. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
4. Within 21 days of the date of service of this order, unless Petitioner consents to a later
date, Respondent SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing
before an immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v.
Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the
community to justify denial of bond,” id. at 1203. In the event Petitioner is
“determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as
to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider Petitioner’s
financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions,
872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017).
5. At least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, Petitioner SHALL receive notice of
the hearing. He SHALL have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, and
he SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing. If counsel has filed an appearance in
the immigration proceedings, at least 72 hours before the hearing, counsel SHALL
receive notice of the scheduled hearing.
6. Respondents SHALL provide a copy of this order to the immigration judge. In
addition, Respondents SHALL ensure that the bond hearing is recorded.
7. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve California City Detention Center with a copy of
this Order.
///
///
Case 2:26-cv-01283-JLT-EPG Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 3

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
8. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026_
Case 2:26-cv-01283-JLT-EPG Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3