(HC) Serban v. Becerra et al

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANDREA ANNAMARIA SERBAN, A-
209-131-642,
Petitioner,
v.
MOISES BECERRA, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:25-cv-02065-DAD-EFB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 24)
Petitioner is a noncitizen alien detained in an immigration detention facility who has
brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. This matter was
referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(17) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
ECF No. 23. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the court grant
petitioner’s motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus and deny petitioner’s request
to modify the court’s September 29, 2026 Order.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
In her petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner alleges that she is a citizen and national
of Romania, who entered the United States when she was fifteen years old. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5, 7.
She alleges that, in the United States, she was the victim of domestic violence and human
trafficking, which included being forced to commit crimes, for which she was prosecuted. Id. ¶¶
Case 1:25-cv-02065-DAD-EFB Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 6

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
2
10-14. In July 2022, she was ordered removed, in abstentia, but her removal proceedings have
since been reopened and are currently pending. Id. ¶¶ 16-19. On October 23, 2025, she was
arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and remains detained. Id. ¶¶ 22, 26.
While in detention, she has requested but has not received medical care for numbness and tingling
in her extremities. Id. ¶¶ 29-31.
Respondents have not filed an answer. In their opposition to petitioner’s motion for a
temporary restraining order, respondents represent, and present evidence that, petitioner is a
native of Italy and a citizen of Romania, who at entered the United States on September 29, 2016.
ECF No. 8-2 at 2-3. Between February 2024 and March 2025, petitioner was convicted in
California state courts for theft offenses. Id. at 4, 24-28. Respondents confirm that petitioner’s
petition to reopen her removal proceedings was granted on November 26, 2025. Id. at 33.
In her October 2, 2026 motion to amend, petitioner represents that, on August 31, 2026,
an immigration judge granted her withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). ECF No. 24 at 2. Petitioner appealed the adverse portions of the decision, which was
received by the BIA on September 9, 2026 and remains pending. Id. at 5; see also
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited October 6, 2026).1
B. Procedural Background
Petitioner initiated this action through counsel on December 30, 2025, ECF No. 1, and
moved for a temporary restraining order the same day. ECF No. 2. Respondents filed an
opposition to the motion, ECF No. 8, and petitioner filed a reply. ECF No. 9. On January 13,
2026, the court denied the motion for temporary restraining order and directed the parties to file a
joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date for any motion for preliminary injunction. ECF
No. 10. The court approved the parties’ briefing schedule by order on January 27, 2026. ECF
No. 12.
1 The court takes judicial notice of the case information provided on the EOIR website.
Fed. R. Evid. 201; see Daniels-Hall v. National Edu. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding it was appropriate under Rule 201 for the district court to take judicial notice of
information on a government website); see, e.g., Argueta v. Walgreens Co., 760 F. Supp. 3d 1028,
1034 (E.D. Cal. 2024).
Case 1:25-cv-02065-DAD-EFB Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 6

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
3
Petitioner filed a motion for preliminary injunction on February 2, 2026, ECF No. 13, and
respondents filed an opposition on February 13, 2026. ECF No. 14. Petitioner filed a reply on
February 17, 2026. ECF No. 15.
On August 25, 2026, petitioner filed a motion to amend her petition and a new motion for
a temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 19, 20. The same day, the court issued a minute order
directing respondents to file any opposition to the motion by August 27, 2026. ECF No. 21.
Respondents failed to respond to that order, and, on August 28, 2026, petitioner filed a request for
ruling on the pending motion. ECF No. 22.
On September 29, 2026, the court granted petitioner’s motion to amend and directed
petitioner to file an amended petition within fourteen days. ECF No. 23. The court also granted,
in part, petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction, ordering that respondents provide
petitioner a bond hearing within ten days of the date of the order. Id. The court denied the
motion for temporary restraining order as moot. Id.
On October 2, 2026, petitioner filed the instant motion to amend. ECF No. 24.
Respondents have filed no opposition.
DISCUSSION
In her October 2, 2026 motion to amend, petitioner request leave to file a first amended
petition that alleges that respondents have violated her rights to substantive due process (claims
one, three and four), as well as procedural due process (claim two), and requests her immediate
release as a remedy. ECF No. 24, Ex. 3. Although the district judge had granted petitioner leave
to file an amended petition on September 29, 2026, that order was premised on petitioner having
proffered a different proposed first amended petition, which had set forth slightly different legal
claims. See ECF No. 19. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the
motion to amend the petition be granted.
In her motion to amend, petitioner also requests that the court modify its September 29,
2026 order and order petitioner’s immediate release. ECF No. 24 at 15. For the reasons set forth
below, the undersigned recommends this request be denied.
/////
Case 1:25-cv-02065-DAD-EFB Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 6

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
4
A. Motion to Amend the Petition
As the district court described in its September 29, 2026 order, the courts should “freely”
grant leave to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Rosenberg Bros. &
Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406, 406 (9th Cir. 1960) (per curiam) (the Rules of Civil Procedure
evince “extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to pleadings”). The court may deny
leave to amend where there is “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive . . . repeated failure to
cure deficiencies . . . [or] undue prejudice to the opposing party” or where amendment would be
futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Here, petitioner seeks leave to amend to augment her allegations that her substantive due
process rights have been violated by her continued detention, compare ECF No. 19, Ex. 1 at 10
with ECF No. 24, Ex. 3 at 24-26, 28-31, and to omit her previously-pled claim that she has
received constitutionally inadequate medical care while detained. Compare ECF No. 1 at 6 with
ECF No. 24, Ex. 3 at 24-31. Petitioner asserts that these changes precipitate from the
Immigration Judge’s August 31, 2026 order granting petitioner withholding of removal under the
CAT. ECF No. 24 at 2.
Petitioner has shown that leave to amend should be granted. Nothing on the record
indicates that the amendments petitioner seeks are requested in bad faith or with undue delay. See
Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Respondents have filed nothing in opposition to the request, nor does
the record indicate respondents would suffer any prejudice from permitting petitioner to file the
additional amendments to the petition that she currently seeks. See id. The undersigned therefore
recommends that petitioner’s motion to amend the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 24,
be granted.
B. Motion to Modify the September 29, 2026 Order
Petitioner additionally requests that the court modify its September 29, 2026 order
granting in part petitioner’s amended motion for preliminary injunction and ordering respondents
to provide petitioner with a bond hearing. ECF No. 24 at 3. Petitioner requests that, instead,
respondents be ordered to immediately release her. Id. However, she has not shown that the
preliminary injunctive relief previously ordered by the court should be modified.
Case 1:25-cv-02065-DAD-EFB Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 6

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
5
Once a preliminary injunction is issued, district courts have “wide discretion” to modify it.
System Fed’n No. 91 Ry. Emp. Dep’t v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 648 (1961); see also Tanner Motor
Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 810 (9th Cir. 1963). A district court retains the power to
modify a preliminary injunction at any time upon the consideration of new facts. See A & M
Records v. Napster, Inc., v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir.2002); Cent. Valley
Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1162 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
Here, petitioner argues that the August 31, 2026 decision of the Immigration Judge
granting withholding of removal, combined with petitioner’s subsequent appeal of the adverse
portions of that decision to the BIA, constitute material changed circumstances relevant to her
claims that her due process rights have been violated because these developments render it less
likely that she will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. ECF No. 24 at 5-6.
Petitioner asserts that, as a result of these changed circumstances, she is now entitled to
immediate release as preliminary injunctive relief. Id.
Petitioner fails to show, however, that these changed factual circumstances provide
grounds to modify the preliminary injunctive relief that the court previously ordered. In granting
petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction, the district judge considered, at that time, both
the procedural and substantive due process implications of petitioner’s lengthy confinement
without a bond hearing. ECF No. 23 at 3. The court found that petitioner had shown that her due
process rights had been violated, simply by virtue of her being detained for ten months without a
bond hearing. Id., citing Roque Soto v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility, No.
1:26-cv-00893-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 1983409, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2026). The court did not
rely on any facts concerning the stage of petitioner’s immigration proceeding—including the fact
that an Immigration Judge’s decision was, at that time, still pending—in determining that
petitioner was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, nor in determining the more limited scope
of it. See id. Finally, the court considered, at that time, petitioner’s alternative requests for
immediate release or for a bond hearing and ordered the latter as preliminary injunctive relief,
not, as petitioner’s argument appears to presuppose, because petitioner had failed to make an
adequate showing of a violation of her due process rights, but because, upon thorough review of
Case 1:25-cv-02065-DAD-EFB Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 6

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
6
the case law, the court concluded that that remedy was legally appropriate given the particular
rights violation that had been shown. See id.; Roque Soto, 2026 WL 1983409, at *3. Simply put,
petitioner fails to show that there has been any change in her material circumstances that warrant
modification of the court’s September 29, 2026 order. The undersigned therefore recommends
that this request be denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1) Petitioner’s motion to amend the habeas petition (ECF No. 24) be GRANTED;
2) Petitioner be DIRECTED to file her first amended habeas petition within fourteen (14)
days of the District Court’s order adopting these Findings and Recommendations; and
3) Petitioner’s request to modify the District Court’s September 29, 2026 Order (ECF
No. 24) be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven (7) days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: October 8, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-02065-DAD-EFB Document 25 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 6