Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ LOZANO, Case No. 26-cv-4514-BAS 14 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 15 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United States, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court are a Petition and Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 Ad Prosequendum filed on August 6, 2026. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) The Petition alleges 22 Petitioner was arrested on August 6, 2026 at approximately 2:20 a.m., and has not been 23 presented for an initial appearance in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5. 24 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directing Respondents to 25 immediately present Petitioner to a magistrate judge for arraignment. 26 Upon review, the Petition and Application do not demonstrate that Petitioner is 27 entitled to relief. Cf. United States v. Pimental, 755 F.3d 1095, 1103–04 (9th Cir. 2014) 28 (finding a four-day delay in presentment over a holiday weekend was unreasonable and 1 ||unnecessary). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition 2 Application. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Petitioner is scheduled for arraignment on August 7, 3 2026 at 2:00 p.m. In the event that Petitioner is not arraigned on August 7, 2026, Petitioner 4 || may renew the Petition and Application. Further, the Clerk of Court shall serve this Order 5 |}on the U.S. Attorney’s Office and close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ~ g || DATED: August 7, 2026 (yatta Bihar anh Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28