Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
25-cv-3626-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Roberto MACEO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3626-AGS-MSB
ORDER REQUIRING ANSWER
Self-represented petitioner Roberto Maceo Rodriguez seeks a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. (See ECF 1.)
At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant
a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting
application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In
this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly
not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).
But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to
justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
Around “March 31, 2022,” Maceo Rodriguez, a citizen of Cuba, “entered the
United States.” 	(ECF 	4, 	at 	3.) 	He 	“was 	released 	under 	an 	Order 	of 	Supervision
(Form I-220B) and fully complied with all reporting requirements.” (Id.) Over three years
later, on “August 5, 2025,” “while voluntarily appearing at a routine [] check-in,” petitioner
was allegedly “arrested” “without any individualized determination of flight risk or
danger.” (Id.) The petition suggests that he has not received the procedure required for
revocation of release under 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3).
This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. This Court has
already held that, absent the “prompt[]” “notice and [] opportunity to be heard,” revocation
Case 3:25-cv-03626-AGS-MSB Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3626-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of release is unlawful. See Soryadvongsa v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2663-AGS-DDL, 2025 WL
3126821 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2025); see also Rokhfirooz v. Larose, No. 25-cv-2053-RSH-
VET, 2025 WL 2646165, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025) (holding that when “ICE fails to
follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful and the petitioner's
release must be ordered”); United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 683 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It
is a well-known maxim that agencies must comply with their own regulations.”); Mendez
v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 563 F.2d 956, 959 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[C]ourts have
generally invalidated adjudicatory actions by federal agencies which violated their own
regulations promulgated to give a party a procedural safeguard.”).
By January 13, 2026, respondent must answer the petition. Any reply by petitioner
must be filed by January 20, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on February 3,
2026, at 2:00 p.m.
Dated: January 6, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03626-AGS-MSB Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2