# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · August 20, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11440355

## Case

- **Full name:** Andres Rodriguez Aguilar v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 20, 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/11440355

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANDRES RODRIGUEZ AGUILAR No. 1:26-cv-04499-DJC-CKD
12
Petitioner,
13
v. RELEASE ORDER
14
WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX A# 088-519-896
15 DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,1
16 Respondents.
17
Petitioner Andres Rodriguez Aguilar is a noncitizen detainee proceeding under
18
a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (FAP (ECF No. 11).) This Court
19
grants Count 3 of the Petition and orders Petitioner’s release from custody.
20
BACKGROUND
21
Petitioner, a noncitizen originally from Cuba, is presently in the custody of
22
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (FAP ¶¶ 1, 5.) Petitioner received a
23
24

25
1 Petitioner also named Pamela Bondi, “Attorney General of the United States,” and Kristi Noem,
“Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security,” and Todd Lyons “Acting Director,
26 Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” as Respondents, although all three no longer hold the
position described. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), their successors in office are
27 automatically substituted and the “misnomer” is “disregarded” as it does not affect “the substantial
rights of the parties.” Therefore, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, and David J. Venturella in their
28 official capacities are substituted.
1 final removal order on August 6, 2013. ( ¶ 6.; Opp’n (ECF No. 15) Ex. B.) He was
2 placed into criminal custody following a conviction and released in 2022 on an Order
3 of Supervision. ( ¶ 3.) Respondents state that “Petitioner was to board a flight for
4 self-departure on May 14, 2026” and that “Petitioner’s failure to report for his flight
5 resulted in his detention.” (Opp’n at 2; Opp’n Exs. E and F.) On May 29, 2026, a week
6 after being detained, Petitioner was given notice of his removal to a third country,
7 Mexico, but refused to give his consent. (Opp’n Ex. G.) On August 11, 2026, DHS
8 revoked Petitioner’s Order of Supervision and provided him with an informal
9 interview. (Opp’n Ex. C at 2.) The briefing on this matter is complete. (Pet. (ECF No.
10 1); FAP; Opp’n; Reply (ECF No. 16).)
11 DISCUSSION
12 This case is materially indistinguishable from the Court’s prior decisions in
13 No. 1:26-cv-04120-DJC-SCR, 2026 WL 2192272, at *1 (E.D.
14 Cal. July 29, 2026); , No. 1:26-cv-05318-DJC-
15 AC, 2026 WL 2323196, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2026);
16 , No. 1:26-cv-05326-DJC-JDP, 2026 WL 2327873, at *2
17 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2026), which concerned Cuban nationals previously released on an
18 Order of Supervision and detained to effectuate removal to Mexico despite their non-
19 consent to the removal.2 The Court resolves the case on the same basis and
20 concludes that the Government did not meet its burden to show a significant
21 likelihood that Petitioner may be removed, and that consequently, Petitioner has
22 established that his present detention violates 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2).3

23
2 The present case differs only in that Respondents articulated Petitioner’s “failure to report for his flight”
24 as the initial justification for his detention, and then, after Petitioner’s detention, notified him of their
intent to remove him to Mexico. This further weakens Respondents’ claim that they have properly
25 revoked Petitioner’s release: as Petitioner points out, the Government may not rely on changed
circumstances not present at the time supervised released was revoked to justify re-detention. (FAP
26 ¶ 33, citing , No. 1:25-cv-01873-DC-AC, 2026 WL 849861, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27,
2026).)
27
3 In so finding, the Court does not determine that it is necessarily impossible that Respondents will be
28 unable to show a change of circumstances in the future. But it is Respondents’ burden to establish a
1 CONCLUSION
2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3 1. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED
4 as to Count 3 of the Petition.4
5 2. Respondents are ordered to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Andres Rodriguez
6 Aguilar from their custody. Respondents shall not impose additional
7 restrictions on him than were already present prior to Petitioner's current
8 detention, unless they are determined to be necessary at a future pre-
9 deprivation/custody hearing.
10 3. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-
11 detaining Petitioner without a change in circumstances to warrant
12 Petitioner's re-detention.
13 4. The Clerk is directed to serve Golden State Annex Detention Facility with
14 a copy of this Order.
15 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment
16 for Petitioner. This Order resolves all pending motions.
17
18 IT 1S SO ORDERED.
19 | Dated: _August 20, 2026 Donel J Coo ttoa—
Hon. Daniel alabretta
20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22 | DJC-10-Aguilar=1:26-cv-04499.merits
23
24
25
26
27) In the interests of judicial economy, the Court declines to address the remaining grounds for relief
2g | Petitioner has raised.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11440355. Public record. Not legal advice.