# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · August 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11434659

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruben Dario Rodriguez Cruz v. Warden of the Golden State Annex, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 7, 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/11434659

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11434659. Public record. Not legal advice.