Rolfi Hernandez Perez, who entered the United States around 2014, was taken into ICE custody on January 21, 2026, without any warning, paperwork, or what he alleged was legitimate reason. He filed a habeas corpus petition seeking immediate release and also requested a temporary restraining order, appointment of counsel, and expedited ruling.
Judge Drozd relied on reasoning from two recent Eastern District of California cases, Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden and Cardenas v. Chestnut, both decided in March 2026. The government conceded in its opposition that it 'agree[d] that the factual and legal issues present here are not substantively distinguishable from such cases.' The court adopted the reasoning from those precedents to grant the habeas petition.
The court had initially set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any law or fact would distinguish this case from the prior rulings. However, ICE did not oppose the court resolving the petition on the current briefing and did not request a hearing, streamlining the proceedings.
Beyond ordering Hernandez Perez's immediate release, Judge Drozd enjoined ICE from re-detaining him without providing notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, where the government would bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the community or flight risk. The ruling suggests a pattern of successful challenges to ICE detention practices in the Eastern District of California.