# Opinion > District Court, E.D. California · June 22, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11388485 ## Case - **Full name:** Carlos Enrique Tojxitumul v. Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** June 22, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11388485 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS ENRIQUE TOJXITUMUL, Case No. 1:26-cv-04431-JLT-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR RESPONDENTS TO LODGE AUDIO RECORDING OF CUSTODY 13 v. REDETERMINATION HEARING 14 WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE (Doc. 11) DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 7-DAY DEADLINE Respondents. 16 17 Background 18 On June 9, 2026, Petitioner Carlos Enrique Tojxitumul, a federal immigration detainee 19 proceeding pro se, commenced this action with the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 20 which he alleges that his continuing detention by Respondents at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility 21 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See (Doc. 1). 22 Previously, on March 23, 2026, in the related habeas corpus action Petitioner commenced 23 in Case No. 1:26-cv-01060-JLT-CDB (see Doc. 8), the Court granted Petitioner the writ of habeas 24 corpus and ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a substantive bond hearing. (Case No. 25 1:26-cv-01060-JLT-CDB, Doc. 20). In light of Petitioner's filing of a new petition here, the Court 26 ordered Respondents to file a report addressing whether and when Petitioner received a bond 27 hearing consistent with the Court’s earlier order and the outcome of any such bond hearing. (Doc. 28 10). 1 Respondents timely responded to the Court’s order. See (Doc. 11). In their report, 2 Respondents represent that on March 27, 2026, Petitioner and his counsel of record in the 3 underlying immigration proceedings appeared for a custody redetermination hearing before an 4 immigration judge. (Doc 11-1, Declaration of Jonathan H. Yu, ¶ 4). In support of that 5 representation, Respondents attach to their report (1) the immigration court’s notice of custody 6 redetermination hearing (Doc. 11-2), and (2) an order of the immigration judge denying Petitioner’s 7 request for release (Doc. 11-3). Neither document corroborates that a custody redetermination 8 hearing actually was held or that either Petitioner or his counsel of record appeared at any such 9 hearing. 10 Discussion 11 In the immigration court’s order, immigration judge Katie Mullins acknowledges this 12 Court’s earlier order granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus requiring Respondents to provide 13 for “a custody redetermination hearing pursuant to INA s. 236(a) [that] states that it is the 14 Department which must ‘demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that [Respondent] is a 15 flight risk or danger to the community.’” (Doc. 11-3 at 1). However, the immigration judge states 16 in her order that “as squarely held by the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Diaz, procedural due process 17 does not, in fact, facially require a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden of proof 18 by ‘clear and convincing evidence.’” Id. at 1. The immigration judge further stated that “given 19 that the District Court TRO1 requires an INA s. 236(a) bond hearing, relevant law and precedent 20 make clear that it is Respondent who bears the burden to show that he is not a danger or a flight 21 risk.” Id. In full, the immigration judge’s order further states: 22 Nonetheless, given the District Court’s TRO, this Court does hereby require the Department in the present bond proceeding to show, by clear and convincing 23 evidence, that Respondent is either a danger or a flight risk. This Court concludes that the Department has established both. Specifically, the Court concludes that the 24 Department has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is both a danger and such a significant flight risk that no amount or combination of 25 release conditions can sufficiently mitigate that risk. 26 Should Respondent appeal the Court’s custody redetermination decision to the 27 1 This Court did not issue a temporary restraining order. See (Case No. 1:26-cv-01060- 28 JLT-CDB, Doc. 17). 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), this Court will provide a memorandum to facilitate review of Respondent’s appeal. See Immigration Court Practice Manual, 2 Chap. 9.3(e)(7).2 3 The immigration judge provides in her order no other facts, analysis, or reasons for her 4 decision to deny Petitioner’s request for custody redetermination. She does not identify any 5 evidence upon which she relied, nor whether any evidence was proffered. As such, this Court is 6 unable to determine whether the immigration judge’s custody redetermination hearing complies 7 with the Court’s order or satisfies procedural due process requirements. E.g., Cinapian v. Holder, 8 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The right to a fair hearing derives from the Due Process 9 Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which applies in removal proceedings.”); Cano-Merida v. I.N.S., 10 311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding petitioner was denied due process and prejudiced when 11 the immigration judge denied him the opportunity to present oral testimony). Further, the 12 immigration judge’s apparent challenge to this Court’s determination of the governing 13 constitutional standard and the evidentiary burden applicable was beyond her authority and 14 jurisdiction. See Vargas v. U.S. Dep’t of Immigration and Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th 15 Cir. 1987) (“the BIA does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional issues.”) (citations 16 omitted); Matter of R-A-V-P, 27 I. & N. Dec. 803, 804 n.2 (BIA 2020) (“The respondent also argues 17 that placing the burden of proof on the alien to establish that he merits release on bond is 18 constitutionally deficient. However, we do not have the authority to entertain constitutional 19 challenges to the statutes and regulations we administer.”). 20 Accordingly, the Court will order Respondents to lodge with the undersigned the audio 21 recording of the custody redetermination hearing. See Rose v. Guyer, 961 F.3d 1238, 1246 (9th 22 Cir. 2020) (“When a district court issues a conditional habeas writ, it retains jurisdiction to 23 determine compliance.”) (quotation and citations omitted); see also Cahill v. Insider Inc., 131 F.4th 24 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2025) (reiterating that a district court “possesses inherent powers” that “include 25 2 This appears to be an erroneous reference as the Manual does not contain a Chapter 9. However, Chapter 8.3(e)(7) provides, “Usually, the Immigration Judge’s decision is rendered 26 orally.  If either party appeals, the Immigration Judge prepares a written decision based on notes 27 from the hearing, however the record will not be transcribed.” EOIR Policy Manual, Part II, Chapter 8.3, available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-II/icpm/chapter-8- 28 3 (last visited June 22, 2026). 1 | the inherent authority of a court to enforce its orders by whatever means”) (quotation and citation 2 | omitted). Further, the Court will order Respondents to not deport and to not transport Petitioner 3 | out of the Eastern District of California pending further proceedings and order of this Court. See 4 | F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting the court’s “express authority under 5 | the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own 6 | jurisdiction”). Given the circumstances, the Court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the 7 || status quo pending further anticipated proceedings before this Court and any subsequent order and 8 | finds that Petitioner has satisfied the factors governing the issuance of such relief. 9 Conclusion and Order 10 For the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents shall lodge 11 | with the undersigned’s chambers (via email CBoren@caed.uscourts.gov) no later than June 29, 12 | 2026, a digital file containing the audio recording of Petitioner’s custody redetermination hearing 13 | before an immigration judge on March 27, 2026. 14 And it is FURTHER ORDERED, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, that 15 || Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States of America nor transfer Petitioner 16 | out of the Eastern District of California. 17 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 'S | Dated: _ June 22, 2026 | Wr bY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11388485. Public record. Not legal advice.