Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In April 2026, District Judge Calabretta granted Cristian David Rodriguez Sandoval's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ordered that he be given a constitutionally adequate bond hearing, and entered judgment. About two weeks later, Rodriguez Sandoval moved to enforce that judgment, arguing that the immigration judge who held the bond hearing had wrongly found him to be a danger to the community. The district judge referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan, who set a briefing schedule.
Before briefing finished, Rodriguez Sandoval filed a document captioned a notice of voluntary dismissal. The notice was internally inconsistent: it asked the court both to grant his petition and to cancel this and all pending petitions. Because the filing did not show whether he still wanted the post-judgment motion decided, the magistrate judge ordered him on August 21, 2026 to state within fourteen days whether he wanted the motion adjudicated or withdrawn. He did not respond. The magistrate judge also consulted the public Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee locator, which indicated that Rodriguez Sandoval was no longer in immigration detention, a result the findings say could also mean he has an executable final order of removal.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Riordan recommends that the motion to enforce judgment be denied and that the action remain closed. The recommendation rests on two alternative grounds stated in the disjunctive: the motion is either moot or has been withdrawn. The findings do not choose between them. They also do not decide whether the immigration judge's dangerousness finding was correct or whether the bond hearing satisfied the earlier judgment.
Two facts drive the recommendation. First, Rodriguez Sandoval never answered the clarification order, leaving his ambiguous voluntary-dismissal notice unexplained. Second, the detainee locator indicated he was no longer held in immigration detention. The findings are cautious on that second point, saying only that the result could signal an executable final order of removal, and they make no finding about why his custody status changed.
Procedurally, the findings are submitted to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party has fourteen days after service to file written objections, and responses are due fourteen days after that. The parties are warned that failing to object in time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Nothing is final until the district judge acts.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge only recommends denial. The motion to enforce remains pending until the district judge rules on the findings and any objections.
- The order granting habeas relief and the entered judgment are not undone by these findings. Only the post-judgment motion to enforce is affected.
- A petitioner who files an inconsistent voluntary dismissal notice and ignores a court order to clarify risks having a pending motion treated as withdrawn.
- The mootness ground rests on a public detainee locator result that the findings treat as an indication rather than a proven fact, which is why mootness is paired with withdrawal as an alternative.
- Objections are due within fourteen days of service, and missing that deadline may waive appellate review.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished magistrate judge recommendation in a single case. It carries no precedential weight and decides nothing about the merits of the bond hearing. Its value is as an example of how a court may handle a post-judgment enforcement motion in an immigration habeas case when the petitioner's position becomes unclear and his custody status appears to have changed.
Several questions remain open. The district judge may adopt, modify, or reject the recommendation after any objections. The findings do not resolve whether the immigration judge's danger finding complied with the habeas judgment, and they do not establish whether Rodriguez Sandoval has a final removal order. If the recommendation is adopted, the enforcement motion is denied while the original grant of habeas relief and the closed status of the case stay as they were. Because the findings rely on a public locator rather than a sworn statement or a government filing, the mootness ground is best read as tentative.