Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 FREDDY GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ- No. 1:26-cv-03319-DAD-CSK (HC)

SANCHEZ,

12

Petitioner,

13 ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT

v. OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING

14 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AS

WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE MOOT

15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,

(Doc. Nos. 1, 3)

16 Respondents.

17

18 On July 26, 2026, the court issued an order granting petitioner’s second motion for a

19 temporary restraining order and ordered respondents to immediately release petitioner from their

20 custody. (Doc. No. 19.) In that order, the court concluded that petitioner is subject to 8 U.S.C.

21 § 1226(a) because he has an appeal pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals

22 challenging the validity of his decision to waive the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order that granted

23 him voluntary departure and entered an alternative removal order. (Id.) (citing Fuga v. Warden,

24 California City Det. Facility, No. 2:26-cv-00654-JLT-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 1396685, at *2-4

25 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2026)). In so concluding, the court rejected respondents’ argument that

26 petitioner is presently subject to the IJ’s alternative removal order and therefore mandatorily

27 detained. (Id.) The court further concluded that petitioner was entitled to be ordered released

28 from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody because the evidence before the court

1 established that petitioner has not received a bond hearing since being arrested by immigration

2 authorities in March 2026. (Id.) (citing Feng v. Lyons, No. 1:26-cv-00235-DJC-SCR, 2026 WL

3 472635, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026)). The court indicated in that order that it was inclined to

4 grant petitioner’s underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus for the reasons set forth in that

5 order and directed respondents to indicate whether respondents oppose the court taking such

6 action without further briefing. (Id.)

7 On July 27, 2026, respondents state that they request this court to deny petitioner habeas

8 relief for the reasons stated in their prior briefing but lack any substantive arguments to

9 distinguish this case from the authority that the court cited in its order granting petitioner’s second

10 motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 20 at 1.) Respondents thus “ask the Court to

11 rule on the merits of the petition without further briefing.” (Id.)

12 Accordingly, pursuant to the reasons set forth in the court’s prior order issued on July 26,

13 2026 (Doc. No. 19), petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus will be granted.

14 For the reasons above,

15 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED as

16 follows:

17 a. Petitioner Freddy Gabriel Rodriguez-Sanchez, A-File No. 221-476-090,

18 shall REMAIN RELEASED from respondents’ custody;

19 b. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining

20 petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without written

21 notice and a hearing before an immigration judge at which hearing the

22 burden will be set in accordance 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a), and its implementing

23 regulations;

24 2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED as having been

25 rendered moot by this order granting him habeas relief; and

26 /////

27 /////

28 /////

1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and to

2 close this case.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

* | Dated: _ July 27, 2026 Da A. 2, oyel

5 DALE A. DROZD

‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28