Y.L.S. v. Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-02927
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 Y.L.S., Case No. 5:25-cv-02927-CV-MBK 13 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 14 RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 ERNESTO SANTACRUZ, JR., et 16 al., 17 Respondents 18 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court reviewed the Petition, the records on 20 file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 21 Petitioner and Respondents filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 22 The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 23 Additionally, as explained in the Report and Recommendation, this Court has 24 the discretion to revisit the issue of what the appropriate burden and standard of 25 proof are at the pre-deprivation hearing. Although this Court previously agreed with 26 the Government’s argument that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez Diaz v. 27 Garland, 83 F.4th 1177, 1178 (9th Cir. 2023) instructed against the imposition of a 28 1 | clear and convincing evidentiary standard, the Court has since been persuaded by 2 | other district courts that have conducted a similar analysis and found that the clear 3 | and convincing evidence standard is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. See 4 | Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F.Supp.3d 1025 (N_D. Cal. 2025); J.S.H.M v. Wofford, No. 3 | 1:25-CV-01309 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2938808, at *17—18 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); 6 | Padilla v. Bowen, No. 2:25-cv-10780-CAS-SK, 2025 WL 3251368, at *8, n.3 (C.D. 7 | Cal. Nov. 21, 2025): Kumar v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00239-TLF, 2026 WL 411833, 8 | at *3 (W_D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2026); Chicoze-Ezechi v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00145- 9 | BAT, 2026 WL 265733, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2026): Garcia v. Andrews, No. 10 | 2:25-CV-01884-TLN-SCR, 2025 WL 1927596, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2025). I] The Court will therefore enjoin Respondents from re-detaining 12 } Petitioner unless Respondents demonstrate at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, by 13 clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the 14 | community, such that her physical custody is required. 15 IT IS ORDERED that: 16 (1) Judgment be entered granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus: 17 (2) a writ of habeas corpus be issued prohibiting Petitioner’s re-detention absent 18 notice and a pre-deprivation hearing at which Respondents bear the burden 19 of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a flight 20 risk or a danger to the community, and that there are no conditions that will 21 reasonably assure Petitioner’s appearance and the safety of any other person 22 in the community; and (3) dismissing this case with prejudice. 24 25 26 | Dated: 3/13/26 Cyathia. Valenzuela 7 HON. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28