(HC) Alencastro Cali v. Warden, California City Correctional Center

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
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRYAN DANIEL ALENCASTRO CALI,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 26-cv-01034-DC-EFB (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18)
Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) 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 August 4, 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. (Doc. No. 13.) On August
14, 2026, Respondents filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations, stating
merely that “[f]or the reasons set forth in Respondents’ previous briefing, Respondent[s] object[]
to the Findings and Recommendations.” (Doc. No. 15.) However, those arguments were already
addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge in this case. (Doc. No. 13.) On September 3, 2026,
Petitioner filed a response to Respondents’ objections which the undersigned interprets as a
statement of non-objection to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.)
Case 2:26-cv-01034-DC-EFB Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 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
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has
reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2026 (Doc. No. 13), are ADOPTED;
2. Petitioner Bryan Daniel Alencastro Cali’s (A-244-480-146) petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED on due process grounds,1 as follows:
a. Petitioner shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from Respondents’ custody with
the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention in January
2026. Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as
electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-
deprivation/custody hearing;
b. Respondents shall RETURN all of Petitioner’s documents and possessions (e.g.,
identification, passport, work permit, Social Security card, etc.) upon his release
from custody;
c. Within three (3) days from the date of entry of this order, Respondents shall FILE
a notice of compliance with this court confirming that Petitioner has been released
in accordance with the above;
d. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven
(7) days’ notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before
1 Because the court is granting the petition on the due process claim (Count Two), the court need
not address any additional grounds raised in the petition. See N.K. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00292-
KES-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 130345, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (granting habeas petition as to
the second count of the petition and not addressing other counts because the petitioner was
entitled to the relief sought based on the court’s ruling as to that second count); Constantinovici v.
Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1166 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) (granting habeas petition based on
due process claim and “declin[ing] to address the remaining grounds in the Petition for seeking
release”).
Case 2:26-cv-01034-DC-EFB Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 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
a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered; and
e. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain
Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of
removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal;
3. Petitioner’s pending motions (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14, 18) are DENIED as having been
rendered moot by this order;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California City
Detention Facility; and
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-01034-DC-EFB Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3