Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RUBEN DARIO RODRIGUEZ CRUZ, No. 1:26-cv-00348-DAD-SCR

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGEMENT

ANNEX, et al.,

15 (Doc. Nos. 20, 26, 28)

Respondents.

16

17

18 Petitioner Ruben Dario Rodriguez Cruz is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with

19 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a

20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 This court previously granted petitioner’s habeas petition and ordered his immediate

22 release. (Doc. No. 15.) On May 11, 2026, petitioner filed the pending motion to enforce

23 judgement. (Doc. No. 20.) On June 5, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

24 recommendations recommending that petitioner’s motion to enforce judgement (Doc. No. 20) be

25 granted. (Doc. No. 26.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that petitioner’s re-detention

26 following a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) did not comport with the

27 requirements of this court’s order enjoining petitioner’s re-detention absent a bond hearing before

28 a neutral decisionmaker, “at which hearing respondent will bear the burden of demonstrating that

1 petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community” (Doc. No. 15 at 2). (Doc. No. 26 at 11.)

2 The magistrate judge further found that IJ abused his discretion in determining that petitioner was

3 a danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence because, first, the IJ incorrectly found

4 that petitioner was arrested and charged with felony hit and run when the evidence before the IJ

5 and argument by petitioner’s attorney at the hearing established that petitioner was charged with

6 misdemeanor hit and run, and second, the IJ failed to meaningfully discuss the probative evidence

7 that petitioner submitted demonstrating his significant family and community ties and

8 rehabilitation efforts. (Doc. No. 26 at 10–11.) The magistrate judge noted that the IJ’s incorrect

9 factual determination regarding petitioner’s criminal history was a material error given that the IJ

10 identified petitioner’s criminal history as the “most significant” factor supporting his

11 dangerousness finding. (Id. at 10.) Finally, the magistrate judge found that the appropriate

12 remedy in this case is petitioner’s immediate release from detention because petitioner has not

13 received the hearing he was entitled to pursuant to this court’s order enjoining his re-detention

14 absent a compliant hearing. (Id. at 12–13.)

15 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained

16 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within seven (7) days after service. (Id. at 13.)

17 On June 9, 2026, respondents filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations

18 (Doc. No. 27) in which they object to the magistrate judge’s finding that respondents violated the

19 court’s injunction due to a non-party’s actions and they object to the magistrate judge’s finding

20 that the IJ abused his discretion. (Doc. No. 27 at 1–4.) On August 6, 2026, petitioner filed a

21 motion for expedited ruling on the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 28.)

22 The court first considers respondents’ objection to the magistrate judge’s finding that they

23 violated this court’s injunction due to a non-party’s action. (Doc. No. 27 at 1–2.) Respondents

24 argue that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) is “not an ‘officer, agent,

25 servant, employee, or attorney’ of [the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)]; it is a

26 distinct adjudicatory body within the Department of Justice.” (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) Respondents’

27 argument ignores the petition, which names, “Respondent Acting or Current Attorney General of

28 the Untied States” as “the most senior official in the U.S. Department of Justice” who has

1 delegated the authority to interpret immigration laws and adjudicate removal cases to the EOIR,

2 “which administers the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).”

3 (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 15.) The Attorney General remains a party to this action and, by respondents’

4 own admission, oversees the EOIR. This objection advanced by respondent does not provide a

5 basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.1

6 The court next considers respondents’ objection to the magistrate judge’s finding that the

7 IJ abused his discretion. Respondents argue that the IJ did not commit clear legal error due to his

8 mistaken finding that petitioner was charged with a felony, rather than two misdemeanors. (Doc.

9 No. 27 at 3.) Respondents argue that that IJ’s oral decision considered all relevant factors and

10 based his decision on the facts underlying petitioner’s arrest, not the charge itself, and that the

11 magistrate judge improperly re-weighed the evidence. (Id. at 3–4.)

12 The magistrate judge thoroughly reviewed the IJ’s oral and written decisions and

13 determined that the IJ abused his discretion when the IJ incorrectly found that petitioner was

14 charged with a felony, rather than misdemeanor offense, and relied on that finding in denying

15 petitioner bond in his written decision. As the magistrate judge noted, the IJ identified the proper

16 standard of review and legal standard (Doc. No. 26 at 10), but that alone is not sufficient in light

17 of the errors committed by the IJ. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024)

18 (“But when there is an indication that something is amiss, like if the BIA misstates the record or

19 fails to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence, we do not credit its use of a

20 catchall phrase to the contrary.”) (cleaned up). This objection advanced by respondent also does

21 not provide a basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.

22

1 The court observes that respondents in prior immigration habeas cases have moved to dismiss

23 respondents other than petitioner’s immediate custodian on the basis that the petitioners may only

name an immediate custodian in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See, e.g., Atal v. Sec’y of the

24 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:26-cv-01945-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 1110268, at *1-2

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026) (collecting cases). As explained in Atal, the court has denied those

25

prior motions explicitly because respondents beyond the immediate custodian should be named

given that the petitioner requested relief beyond immediate release and those further parties

26

needed to be enjoined as to their ability to re-detain the petitioner. Id. The court is concerned by

27 respondents’ apparent duplicitousness in taking the litigation position that such parties are not

necessary in other actions but are necessary in this action in order for injunctions identical in

28 effect to be binding.

1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

2 || de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

3 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4 For the reasons stated above,

5 1. The findings and recommendations filed on June 5, 2026 (Doc. No. 26) are

6 ADOPTED IN FULL;

7 2. Petitioner’s motion to enforce judgement (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED as follows:

8 a. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Ruben

9 Dario Rodriguez Cruz, A-File No. 221-094-029, from respondents’ custody

10 on the same conditions he was subject to prior to his re-detention on or

1] about April 23, 2026;

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

13 petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, unless petitioner

14 is provided with written notice before a pre-deprivation bond hearing to be

15 convened by a neutral decision maker, at which hearing respondents will

16 bear the burden of demonstrating that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to

17 the community;

18 3. Petitioner’s motion for expedited ruling (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED as having been

19 rendered moot by this order;

20 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the Golden State Annex detention

21 facility with a copy of this order; and

22 5. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to close this case.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

| Dated: _ August 7, 2026 Dake A. 2, oyel

25 DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28