Angel Emilio Machado-Arevalo v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum filed by a federal criminal defendant alleging a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5 due to a delay in presentment. The court denied the petition without prejudice, noting that the defendant was scheduled for arraignment the same day and had been held in state custody for a separate offense prior to transfer to federal custody.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition and Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum denied without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition and Application. (ECF Nos. 1-2.)” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the petition without prejudice is consistent with the procedural posture. The petition was filed on July 30, 2026, and the order notes that the petitioner is scheduled for arraignment on July 31, 2026. Because the relief sought (immediate presentment) was effectively mooted by the imminent arraignment, and because the delay was partially attributable to state custody for a separate offense, denying the petition without prejudice allows the petitioner to renew the motion if the arraignment does not occur as scheduled. This is a standard procedural mechanism to avoid unnecessary judicial intervention when the requested relief is about to be granted by the government. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound but brief. It correctly identifies that the petition is moot or premature because arraignment is scheduled for the next day. It cites Pimental to contextualize the reasonableness of delays, though it does not explicitly analyze whether the specific delay here (July 8 to July 30/31) was unreasonable in the same way Pimental was. However, the denial without prejudice is a safe and appropriate procedural outcome given the imminent arraignment.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ANGEL EMILIO MACHADO- Case No. 26-cv-4357-BAS AREVALO, 14 ORDER DENYING PETITION Petitioner, 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 16 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney 17 General of the United States, et al., 18 Respondents. 19 20 Presently before the Court are a Petition and Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 Ad Prosequendum filed on July 30, 2026. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) The Petition alleges Petitioner 22 has not been presented for an initial appearance in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal 23 Procedure 5. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directing 24 Respondents to immediately present Petitioner to a magistrate judge for arraignment. 25 Upon review, the Petition and Application do not demonstrate that Petitioner is 26 entitled to relief. Cf. United States v. Pimental, 755 F.3d 1095, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2014) 27 (finding a four-day delay in presentment over a holiday weekend was unreasonable and 28 unnecessary). Although Petitioner was “found” in the United States on July 8, 2026, he 1 || was arrested for DUI by Oceanside Police Department and was held in state custody for 2 state offense. He has now been brought into federal custody. Accordingly, the Court 3 || DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition and Application. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) 4 || Petitioner is scheduled for arraignment on July 31, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. In the event that 5 Petitioner is not arraigned on July 31, 2026, Petitioner may renew the Petition and 6 || Application. Further, the Clerk of Court shall serve this Order on the U.S. Attorney’s 7 || Office and close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ~ 10 || DATED: July 31, 2026 yatta Bahar □□ Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- United States v. Luis Torres Pimental 12-50038 · 2014-06-24