Gomez v. Unknown Party 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Junior Gomez,
Petitioner,
v.
Unknown Party, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-03255-PHX-JJT (CDB)
ORDER
At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14, “R&R”) entered by United
States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles recommending that the Court grant the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and order Respondents
to release Petitioner Gomez from custody under the same conditions in place before his
detention or to provide him a bond redetermination hearing. In the R&R, Judge Bibles
advised the parties they were “allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy
of [the R&R] within which to file specific written objections to the Court,” and that failure
to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will
be considered waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration of the issues” as
provided in United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). (Doc. 13
at 22-23.) It has been 20 days since entry of the R&R and no party has filed any objection.
Respondents thus have waived their right to de novo appellate consideration of the issues.
The Court in any event reviews the issues raised in the Petition and Response thereto
on their merits. Upon doing so, it concludes, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, that
Case 2:25-cv-03255-JJT Document 15 Filed 11/24/25 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
Judge Bibles is correct and it will grant the Petition. The claims raised in this matter are by
now well-studied in this Court and the undersigned will not rehash the analysis it and other
members of the Court have followed repeatedly in addressing the issues here raised by yet
another petitioner. For the reasons set forth comprehensively by Judge Lanza in Echevarria
v. Bondi et al., 25-CV-3252-PHX-DWL at Doc. 13 (D. Ariz. Oct. 3, 2025), the Court
concludes that under the circumstances of Petitioner’s matter, he is subject to detention
determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, not Section
1225(b), as Respondents argue. Continued detention of Petitioner without the procedures
set forth in Section 1226(a) violates his right to due process.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED adopting in whole the R&R entered by Judge
Bibles (Doc. 14), including its reasoning.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall release Petitioner from
custody under the same conditions as he was previously released or provide him with a
bond redetermination hearing within seven days of the entry of this Order. The Clerk of
Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file in the docket a Notice of
Compliance within three days of such compliance.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2025.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-03255-JJT Document 15 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 2