Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00891/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00891-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

GUSTAVO PURECO CALDERON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

WILLIAM BARR, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:20-cv-00891 KJM GGH P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, an alien detainee in the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (“ICE”), is proceeding through counsel on a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 

28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c). 

 On May 12, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 and served no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 

and any reply to the objections to be filed no later than Friday, May 15, 2020. As of the date this 

order issues, neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 

Case 2:20-cv-00891-KJM-GGH Document 10 Filed 05/19/20 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 

magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 

Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 

the record and by the proper analysis; the court clarifies that while it finds the discussion in the 

findings and recommendations starting at page 5, line 7 through page 7, line 16 helpful, it does 

not reach the questions or conclusions suggested by that discussion to resolve the matter currently 

before it. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 12, 2020, are adopted in full; 

 2. This action is stayed pending adjudication of the Northern District class action in 

Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, No. 20-CV-02731- VC, 2020 WL 2059848 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020); 

and 

 3. The parties shall notify this court within seven (7) days of the resolution of petitioner’s 

claims by the court in Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, supra, or any other event any party believes calls 

for lifting of the stay imposed here, whichever is earlier. 

DATED: May 19, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00891-KJM-GGH Document 10 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2