1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DOE, No. 1:25-cv-00506-KES-SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 14 v. MOTION TO STRIKE UNLAWFULLY NAMED RESPONDENTS, DENYING 15 RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 16 PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH A BOND TONYA ANDREWS, FACILITY HEARING BEFORE IMMIGRATION JUDGE 17 ADMINISTRATOR AT GOLDEN STATE ANNEX, 18 Doc. 27 Respondents. 19

20 21 Petitioner John Doe is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of 22 habeas corpus pursuant to

. Petitioner challenges his continued detention under 23 the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Doc. 1. This matter was referred to a 24 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 25 On September 8, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 26 recommendations that recommended granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus, granting 27 respondent’s motion to strike unlawfully named respondents, denying respondent’s motion to 28 dismiss, and directing respondent to provide petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration 1 judge. Doc. 27. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained 2 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. On 3 September 21, 2025, petitioner filed a notice of non-opposition to the findings and 4 recommendations. Doc. 28. Respondent has not filed objections, and the deadline to do so has 5 passed. 6 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 7 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 8 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 8, 2025, Doc. 27, are 11 adopted in full; 12 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is GRANTED. 13 3. Respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, Doc. 14, is DENIED. 14 4. Respondents’ motion to dismiss and strike unlawfully named respondents, Doc. 11, is 15 GRANTED. All respondents other than respondent Tonya Andrews are dismissed. 16 Tonya Andrews, the facility administrator of Golden State Annex, remains as the 17 proper respondent in this matter. 18 5. Respondent is ordered to provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 19 before an immigration judge that comports with the requirements set forth in Singh v. 20 Holder,

(9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he government must prove by clear and 21 convincing evidence that [petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to 22 justify denial of bond.”

. In the event that petitioner is determined not to be 23 a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention 24 without bond, the immigration judge should consider petitioner’s financial 25 circumstances and alternative conditions of release in accordance with Hernandez v. 26 Sessions,

(9th Cir. 2017). 27 /// 28 /// 1 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 2 3 4 | ISSO ORDERED. _ 5 Dated: _ October 11, 2025 4h ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28