From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Office Dir.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 13, 2020
Case No. 3:19-cv-01358-SB (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020)

Summary

finding a successive bond hearing necessary where petitioner had been detained pursuant to § 1226(c) for twenty-seven months, and twenty-three months had passed since his first bond hearing

Summary of this case from Omar M. v. Barr

Opinion

Case No. 3:19-cv-01358-SB

04-13-2020

HANCEL ZAGAL-ALCARAZ, Petitioner, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On March 25, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R) [ECF 30], recommending that I grant Petitioner Hancel Zagal-Alcaraz's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF 1] and order that he be provided with a constitutionally compliant bond hearing within thirty days. No objections were filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

CONCLUSION

Upon review of the F&R, I agree with Judge Beckerman's analysis and conclusions. Therefore, I ADOPT her F&R [30] in full. Respondent is ORDERED to present Mr. Zagal-Alcaraz for a constitutionally compliant bond hearing within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13 day of April, 2020.

/s/_________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Office Dir.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 13, 2020
Case No. 3:19-cv-01358-SB (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020)

finding a successive bond hearing necessary where petitioner had been detained pursuant to § 1226(c) for twenty-seven months, and twenty-three months had passed since his first bond hearing

Summary of this case from Omar M. v. Barr
Case details for

Zagal-Alcaraz v. ICE Field Office Dir.

Case Details

Full title:HANCEL ZAGAL-ALCARAZ, Petitioner, v. ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Apr 13, 2020

Citations

Case No. 3:19-cv-01358-SB (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2020)

Citing Cases

Omar M. v. Barr

Moreover, courts outside this District have found that due process may require a second bond hearing based on…