(HC) Rivas Rojas v. Warden, California City Detention Center

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
JONAIFER GUILLERMO RIVAS ROJAS
(A-240-530-033),
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:26-cv-06539-DC-CSK (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 10)
Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed this application for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 16, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within seven days. (Doc. No. 10.) On
September 20, 2026, Respondents objected “to the findings and recommendations for the reasons
stated in their Answer.” (Doc. No. 11.) However, those arguments were addressed and rejected by
the magistrate judge in this case and by the undersigned in other cases. Specifically, the
undersigned has found that the Due Process Clause requires that, in order for the government to
re-detain a noncitizen who has been previously released on bond or conditional parole under
Case 1:26-cv-06539-DC-CSK Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 4

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
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), the government must
provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the noncitizen’s
eligibility for bond must be considered. See Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (E.D.
Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and immediate release of the
petitioner based on his likelihood of success on the merits of his due process claim); Labrador-
Prato v. Noem, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (same); D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-
cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026) (same); Altin v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-
cv-00792-DC-CSK (HC), 2026 WL 309563 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (granting motion for
temporary restraining order and habeas petition as to the petitioner’s due process claim). Thus,
Respondents’ objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the findings and
recommendations.
On September 21, 2026, the court entered on the docket Petitioner’s reply in support of his
petition, which was signed by Petitioner on September 16, 2026, and thus sent to the court before
Petitioner received a copy of the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 12.) In
addition, on September 28, 2026, Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations in which he objects to the recommendation that he be provided with a bond
hearing rather than release. (Doc. No. 13.)
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has
reviewed the file and finds the findings to be supported by the record and by the magistrate
judge’s analysis. However, the court finds that the appropriate relief in this case is Petitioner’s
immediate release from custody. As noted above, this court has repeatedly found that noncitizens
are constitutionally entitled to prior notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before being detained by
immigration authorities, yet Respondents fail to explain why Petitioner was detained without such
notice and hearing. See Selis Tinoco, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1141; Labrador-Prato, 815 F. Supp. 3d
1113; D.L.C., 2026 WL 25511; Altin, 2026 WL 309563. The court is also unpersuaded that
Respondents’ mere mention of Petitioner’s recent misdemeanor conviction for which he was
Case 1:26-cv-06539-DC-CSK Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 4

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
sentenced to thirty days (see Doc. Nos. 6 at 13–14; 12 at 1), is sufficient to explain why Petitioner
was not owed due process prior to his immigration detention. See Gomez Linares v. Mullin, No.
1:26-cv-04105-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 2240988 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2026) (ordering immediate
release of the petitioner rather than a bond hearing where the respondents failed to attach
evidence showing the petitioner’s detention was based on pending criminal charges and the
alleged criminal conduct did not excuse the failure to provide prior notice and a pre-deprivation
hearing); Lucas-Roblero v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-06366-DC-CKD, Doc. No. 7 (E.D. Cal. Aug 13,
2026) (ordering immediate release for the petitioner where the respondents made no argument as
to the implications, if any, of the petitioner’s alleged arrest noted in the Form I-213 attached to
the respondents’ brief).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 16, 2026 (Doc. No. 10), are
ADOPTED IN PART;
2. Petitioner Jonaifer Guillermo1 Rivas Rojas’s (A-240-530-033) petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED, as follows:
a. Petitioner shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from Respondents’ custody with
the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention on in June
2026. Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as
electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-
deprivation/custody hearing;
b. Respondents shall RETURN all of Petitioner’s documents and possessions (e.g.,
identification, passport, work permit, Social Security card, etc.) upon his release
from custody;
c. Within three (3) days from the date of entry of this order, Respondents shall FILE
a notice of compliance with this court confirming that Petitioner has been released
in accordance with the above;
1 Petitioner also uses the spelling “Janaifer Guilhermo.” (Doc. No. 1.)
Case 1:26-cv-06539-DC-CSK Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 4

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
d. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven
(7) days’ notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before
a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered; and
e. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain
Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of
removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California City
Detention Facility; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2026	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-06539-DC-CSK Document 14 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 4