Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ruben Hurtado Diaz, also identified in the petition by two aliases, is a noncitizen who filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her re-detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement when she appeared at a scheduled appointment on her order of supervision. Claims one through four alleged that revocation of the order of supervision and re-detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, regulations, and her Fifth Amendment due process rights; claim five separately challenged unlawful removal to a third country. The findings and recommendations recount that her final order of removal to Mexico issued in June 2013, that she was also granted withholding of removal to Mexico and released on an order of supervision, and that ICE re-detained her on October 3, 2025.
On March 2, 2026, Hurtado Diaz filed the petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order. The district court stated that the issues appeared to mirror those in prior cases and directed respondents to address whether any factual or legal issues materially distinguished the case. On March 4, respondents filed a return and an opposition arguing that detention was authorized because she had a final removal order from June 2013 and there was a likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Hurtado Diaz replied on March 5. Because respondents did not object to converting the motion, the district court treated it as one for a preliminary injunction.
The magistrate judge's October 15, 2026 document states the governing habeas standard: the writ reaches a person in custody whose detention violates the Constitution or federal law, and district courts have habeas jurisdiction over immigration detention. It then turns to the merits after merits briefing closed.
The Court’s Holding
On March 6, 2026, the district court noted respondents' acknowledgment that the legal analysis in Hoac v. Becerra, Vuong v. Becerra, and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut applied to the case. It concluded that because respondents were seeking to remove Hurtado Diaz to a third country, they still had to comply with the applicable regulations regarding re-detention to effectuate removal. The court granted the motion, ordered her immediate release, and enjoined and restrained respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining her absent constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, strict compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). The district court then referred the action to the assigned magistrate judge, and merits briefing closed.
Finding no change in the record since that ruling, the magistrate judge recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be granted based on a finding that respondents failed to comply with the applicable regulations regarding revocation of an order of supervision and re-detention to effectuate removal to a third country. The recommendation further proposed that a permanent injunction issue on the same terms as the preliminary injunction and that the Clerk of Court enter judgment for petitioner and close the case.
These are findings and recommendations submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), not a final judgment; the document allows seven days to file objections, seven days after service for responses, and warns that failure to object may waive the right to appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the § 2241 petition because respondents had not complied with the regulations governing revocation of supervision and re-detention for third-country removal.
- The proposed permanent injunction would bar re-arrest or re-detention absent constitutional protections, expressly including strict compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
- The earlier preliminary injunction had ordered Hurtado Diaz's immediate release after respondents acknowledged that the analysis in three prior Eastern District of California decisions applied.
- The recommendation rested on an unchanged record following the district court's preliminary-injunction ruling rather than a newly developed factual record.
- The October 15, 2026 document did not itself enter final judgment; it submitted findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge with a seven-day objection period.
Why It Matters
The recommendation applies the court's earlier third-country-removal analysis to a noncitizen who had withholding of removal to Mexico and had been released on supervision. Its operative point is regulatory: seeking removal somewhere other than Mexico did not eliminate the requirements governing revocation of supervision and renewed detention.
The proposed relief would convert the existing preliminary restrictions into a permanent injunction and direct judgment for Hurtado Diaz. Until the district judge acts, however, the grant of habeas relief, permanent injunction, judgment, and closure remain recommendations rather than completed dispositions.