1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DUNG VAN TRUONG, Case No. 5:26-cv-00504-TJH-PD
12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
13 v.
UNITED STATES
14 MARK BOWEN, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 Respondents.
16
17
18
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the
19
records on file, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
20
Judge (“the Report”), and Respondents’ Objections to the Report. The Court
21
has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which
22
Respondents have objected.
23
The Court accepts the Report and adopts it as its own findings and
24
conclusions. Accordingly, the Petition is granted in part, and Respondents are
25
ordered to release Petitioner forthwith from detention on conditions of release
26
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.5, to refrain from re-detaining Petitioner without
27
28
1 || timely following the procedures in 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13, and refrain
2 || from re-detaining Petitioner solely for the purpose of effectuating his removal,
3 || until there is a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
4 || future’. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
6 || DATED: April 10, 2026 en OF Li — 4
3 rong ¥LE TERRY J. HA# TER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.