(HC) Renoj Vasquez v. Mullin 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
MARVIN RENOJ V.,1
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:26-cv-04139-TLN-SCR
A# 208-578-865
ORDER
Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee who filed this habeas corpus action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 30, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. (ECF No. 24.) Petitioner
and the Respondents have each field objections to the findings and recommendations. Petitioner
claims the findings and recommendations are based on faulty facts because the magistrate judge
relied on a purported July 2026 arrest that did not occur. (ECF No. 25 at 2.) Petitioner also
1 The Court omits Petitioner’s full name to protect sensitive personal information. See
Memorandum Re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions,
Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United
States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-
suggestion_cacm_0.pdf.
Case 1:26-cv-04139-TLN-SCR Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 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
objects to the recommendation of an additional bond hearing and argues the record shows
Respondents are unable to conduct a constitutionally adequate hearing. (Id. at 2–8.) Respondents
object “for the reasons stated in [their] response to the Motion.” (ECF No. 26.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 24) are ADOPTED in full.
2. Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Respondents are ORDERED to convene a new detention hearing, where
the government will bear the burden by clear and convincing evidence, of
demonstrating that Petitioner presents a danger to the community or a
serious risk of flight such that no alternative to detention can mitigate that
risk;
b. the hearing shall occur within fourteen days;
c. Petitioner and his immigration counsel shall be provided at least seven
days’ notice of such hearing; and
d. within three court days of the hearing, Respondents shall file a notice of
compliance and advise the Court as to the outcome of the hearing.
3. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 23) is DENIED as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 8, 2026
___________________________________
TROY L. NUNLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-04139-TLN-SCR Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2