Angeles Rufino J.-B. v. Christopher Chestnut in his official capacity as the Warden of the California City Detention Center operated by CoreCivic, Inc., a Maryland corporation; Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Moises Becerra, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELES RUFINO J.-B.,1 No. 1:26-cv-01732-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, A-Number: 234-934-200 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT in his official HABEAS CORPUS capacity as the Warden of the California 15 City Detention Center operated by (Doc. 1) CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland 16 corporation; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] the Department of Homeland Security; 17 PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; in their official capacity; MOISES 18 BECERRA, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of Immigration and Customs 19 Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, 20 Respondents. 21

22 23 Petitioner Angeles Rufino J.-B. is a noncitizen whom immigration authorities released in 24 2001 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and re-detained on December 31, 2025, on the asserted ground 25 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial 26 Conference of the United States, the Court omits petitioner’s full name, using only his first name and last initial, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social 27 Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l- 28 suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. 1 that he was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). 2 On March 3, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus along with a 3 motion for temporary restraining order. (Docs. 1, 2.) On the same date, the District Court issued 4 an order directing Respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in 5 this case that distinguish it from the Court's prior orders in Crispin M.C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV- 6 01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25- 7 CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 8 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025). (Doc. 5.) On March 5, 2026, Respondents filed a response. 9 (Doc. 7.) On March 8, 2026, the District Court converted the motion for temporary restraining 10 order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 8.) As Respondents had not made any new 11 legal arguments, or identified any factual or legal issues that distinguished the case from the 12 Court’s prior decisions noted above, the Court granted the motion, ordered Petitioner’s immediate 13 release, and enjoined the government from re-detaining Petitioner unless it provided no less than 14 seven (7) days’ notice and held a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter. (Id.) The 15 matter was referred to the undersigned for further proceedings. 16 On March 9, 2026, the Court issued an order directing the parties to advise whether they 17 sought to provide additional briefing on the petition. (Doc. 9.) On March 10, 2026, Respondents 18 replied that they wished to stand on their previous submissions. (Doc. 10.) On March 17, 2026, 19 Petitioner replied that he wished to stand on his previous submissions. (Doc. 11.) Accordingly, 20 the Court will recommend the petition be granted for the same reasons set forth by the District 21 Court in its order granting a preliminary injunction. 22 The District Court also noted that Respondents’ request, in the alternative, that the Court 23 hold the case in abeyance pending the appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.). 24 The District Court stated that the undersigned could consider whether deferring a ruling on the 25 petition is warranted pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bostock. The Court is doubtful the 26 Ninth Circuit decision will impact the Court’s conclusion that Petitioner has a protected liberty 27 interest that arises from his prior release from immigration custody. Respondents’ position has 28 been repeatedly rejected by this Court, as well as the vast majority of other courts that have 1 considered the legal arguments at issue. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends denying 2 Respondents’ request to hold the matter in abeyance. 3 RECOMMENDATION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 5 habeas corpus be GRANTED, the government be ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner, unless 6 it provides no less than seven (7) days’ notice to Petitioner and holds a pre-deprivation bond 7 hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at 8 which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered,2 and Respondents’ request to hold 9 proceedings in abeyance be DENIED. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 12 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 13 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 14 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document 15 should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall 16 not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 17 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 18 exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 19 number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 20 excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 21 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 22 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 23 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 24 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 25

2 The injunction should be limited in certain situations. If legally sufficient circumstances justify 26 arrest without notice in advance, re-detention should be permissible provided a post-deprivation 27 hearing consistent with the requirements set forth here is provided within seven (7) days of the arrest. In addition, the injunction should not affect Respondents’ ability to re-detain Petitioner 28 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, if and when a final order of removal is obtained. 1 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 2 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: March 26, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28