Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN E.V., Civil No. 1:26-cv-04022-MWJS

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR

Petitioner, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

vs. A# 246-839-923

WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE

DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Ruben E.V.1 is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “petition”), Dkt. No. 1, and a

motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO motion”), Dkt. No. 2.

Petitioner entered the country in February 2023, and he turned himself in to

immigration officers. Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 5. Petitioner applied for asylum and was

released. Id. at pgs. 5–6. Since then, he has reported for all required check-ins. Id. at pg.

6. When Petitioner reported for a check-in on April 30, 2026, he was arrested and

detained. Id.

1 For reasons previously explained in Sergio D.L.S. v. Warden, Cal. City Correctional

Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-02821-MWJS, 2026 WL 1049713, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026), only

Petitioner’s first name and the initials of his last name are used in this order.

Petitioner now invokes this court’s habeas jurisdiction, contending that his arrest

and detention, without any pre-deprivation process, violate his constitutional due

process rights. Id. at pgs. 17–18. This court and many others have granted relief in

cases analogous to this one. See, e.g., A.J.S.M.P. v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-03163-MWJS, 2026

WL 1190220 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2026), Danilo J.Q.E. v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-03370-MWJS,

2026 WL 1257548 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2026). The court has again considered these

precedents and concluded that they reached the correct result based on the current state

of Supreme Court and circuit precedent. To resolve this case, therefore, the court need

only determine whether there is any factual or legal basis to distinguish those prior

decisions.

The court issued an order to show cause, calling on Respondents to identify “any

factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from prior cases” like

those listed above. Dkt. No. 8. The court appreciates Respondents’ timely and candid

opposition. Dkt. No. 10. Although Respondents maintain that Petitioner’s detention is

lawful, they make no effort to distinguish this case from those cited above. Indeed,

Respondents acknowledge that “there are no significant factual or legal issues in this

case that materially distinguish it from the cases identified in the [court’s] [o]rder.” Id.

at pg. 1. Respondents do not oppose the court ruling directly on the petition, they do

not request a hearing, and they do not intend to file any additional affirmative briefing.2

Id.

In a supplement to their opposition, Dkt. No. 12, Respondents state that an

immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed on May 21, 2026. As Respondents

acknowledge, however, Petitioner has until June 22, 2026, to appeal the immigration

judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Id. at pg. 1; see also Dkt. No. 12-1,

at pg. 5 (reflecting that Petitioner reserved his right to appeal). Accordingly,

Respondents do not argue that Petitioner is currently subject detention under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a) or any other statutory provision.

Given the lack of any factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it

from the prior orders that this court has found persuasive, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. No. 1, is GRANTED to the extent

Petitioner argues that his due process rights have been violated. Given the foregoing,

the TRO motion, Dkt. No. 2, and Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. No. 3, are

DENIED as moot.

2 Respondents do, however, ask the court to hold this matter in abeyance pending

the appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.), Dkt. No. 10, at pg. 2, which

presents the issue of whether § 1226(a) or § 1225(b) applies to individuals who entered

the country without inspection and who were not apprehended by immigration

authorities before their detention in 2025. Those are not the factual circumstances

presented here. The record reflects that the government initially detained Petitioner in

2023, then released him. Given the factual differences between this case and Rodriguez,

and the nature of the relief Petitioner seeks, the court declines to hold this case in

abeyance pending the resolution of the Rodriguez appeal.

Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Ruben E.V.

(A# 246-839-923) from their custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional

restrictions on Petitioner, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-

deprivation/custody hearing. Respondents are permanently ENJOINED AND

RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with

constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice

describing the change of circumstances necessitating Petitioner’s arrest and detention,

and a timely hearing. At any such hearing, the government shall bear the burden of

establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the

community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner shall be allowed to have their counsel

present. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may

detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of

removal, or in the event exigent or urgent circumstances arise that justify arresting and

detaining Petitioner before pre-deprivation process can be provided.

//

//

//

//

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment for

Petitioner.

IT I5 SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2026, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

□□□

□ 8. @ /s/ Micah WJ. Smith

‘Fe ee

Micah W.J. Smith

United States District Judge

ea ie

Civil No. 1:26-cv-04022-MWJS; Ruben E.V. v. Warden of the Golden State Detention Facility,

et al.; ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS