Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RUDY RIVAS, Case No. 5:26-cv-01718-MCS-AJR

11

Petitioner, ORDER RE: REPORT AND

12

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

13 v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

J. JOHNSON et al.,

15

Respondents.

16

17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file,

19 and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

20 The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation that

21 Petitioner is entitled to relief on Ground One of the petition because Respondents

22 violated his right to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. (R.& R. 6–7.)

23 However, the Court respectfully disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings

24 and recommendation that the appropriate remedy for the violation is immediate release.

25 (R. & R. 7–8.) Given that “habeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy,” Schlup

26 v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995), courts have “broad discretion in conditioning a

27 judgment granting habeas relief,” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987). While

28 the traditional remedy provided by the writ is immediate release, modern courts

1 generally “employ a conditional order of release in appropriate circumstances.” Harvest

2 v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 741–42 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). The facts and nature

3 of the violation here militate in favor of a conditional order of release. Petitioner claims

4 he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) without adequate

5 procedural safeguards. (See generally Pet., ECF No. 1.) Specifically, he contends ICE

6 agents arrested him without explanation or showing him a warrant and then refused to

7 provide Petitioner with a bond hearing. (Pet. ¶¶ 10–11.) Without disputing Petitioner’s

8 allegations, Respondents concede that Petitioner is a member of the bond-eligible class

9 certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1127 (C.D. Cal.

10 2025), and is thus entitled to a bond hearing. (Resp. 2, ECF No. 10.) Given

11 Respondents’ concession that Petitioner is a member of the Maldonado Bautista class,

12 the appropriate remedy is the relief available to class members: a bond hearing before

13 a neutral immigration judge within seven days. See, e.g., Rizo v. Lyons, No. 5:26-cv-

14 00194-SSS-BFM, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15090, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026)

15 (“Because Petitioner’s Habeas Petition alleges facts that place him squarely within the

16 definition of the Bond Eligible Class, the Court is compelled to find that he is entitled

17 to . . . what is guaranteed by Bautista’s final judgment.”); Garcia v. Semaia, No. 5:25-

18 cv-03536-HDV-AS, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6680, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026)

19 (granting relief pursuant to Maldonado Bautista where the Government conceded that

20 the petitioner was a class member). Indeed, prompt, post-deprivation process can cure

21 certain pre-deprivation due process deficiencies. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53

22 F.4th 1189, 1208 (9th Cir. 2022) (reasoning that under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.

23 319 (1976), courts must “consider the process [petitioner] received [while detained]”

24 and “the further process that was available to him”); Aguilar v. Semaia, No. 5:26-CV-

25 00023-MCS, 2026 WL 166906, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (Scarsi, J.) (denying

26 request for immediate release from immigration detention in light of post-detention

27 process provided, including a bond hearing). A neutral immigration judge can

28 determine, on a more developed record, whether Petitioner is entitled to release on bond.

1 If Petitioner is denied bond, he will be able to appeal that denial to the Board of

2 Immigration Appeals.

3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting the Petition.

4 Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before a

5 neutral immigration judge within seven days of entry of this Order, in accordance with

6 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If Respondents do not provide Petitioner with an individualized

7 bond hearing within seven days, they must immediately release him.

8

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 Dated: April 22, 2026

MARK C. SCARSI

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28