Daniel S. Roberts
How Judge Roberts decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In 2241 immigration habeas he leans heavily on the respondents' litigation posture: where the government declines to oppose or to dispute the petition's facts, he treats those facts as conceded under C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-12 and grants relief, and he waives the prudential exhaustion requirement where the government does not raise it.
“Respondents had the opportunity to dispute the facts alleged in the Petition, but declined to do so. ... Accordingly, the facts alleged in the Petition are undisputed and have been conceded by Respondents. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.”
On emergency TRO requests he distinguishes procedure from merits: a bare after-hours ex parte application gets denied without prejudice for lack of an emergency showing (no opposition briefing considered), but once the application is fully briefed by both sides, he will grant a TRO outright on the merits of the underlying due-process claim.
“After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Application, the Court GRANTS the Application, and issues the requested TRO and OSC as specified further below.”
Administrative exhaustion is not automatic: where the government's answer actually raises a pending, unexhausted administrative appeal (rather than declining to oppose), he will deny the habeas petition without prejudice on exhaustion grounds notwithstanding his own jurisdiction to reach the merits.
“Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies because he seeks habeas review of the IJ's bond denial ahead of his pending appeal before the BIA.”
Procedural preferences
He tailors the habeas remedy to the defect: outright immediate release where re-detention itself violated due process (Ahuacama), but the narrower remedy of an individualized 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) bond hearing before an Immigration Judge where the claim is procedural (Mao). Where venue is contested he will transfer rather than dismiss (Marquez).
“within seven days of the date of this Order, Respondents must provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before an Immigration Judge.”
When a detainee's imminent removal threatens to moot the case before he can rule, he will enjoin removal sua sponte to preserve jurisdiction even while denying (or only partly granting) the broader TRO relief requested -- keeping the underlying petition alive is the priority, not the emergency application itself.
“ORDER TEMPORARILY ENJOINING REMOVAL OF PETITIONER FROM CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN ORDER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER PETITION ON ITS MERITS, BUT OTHERWISE DENYING PETITIONER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
“ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 . The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus therefore is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED THAT within seven days of the date of this Order, Respondents must provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before an Immigration Judge.”
“ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts. See document for details. ... (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.)”
“ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ORDERING PETITIONER'S IMMEDIATE RELEASE by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner ... from custody, reinstate his release under the same conditions that were in place before his re-detention on May 7, 2026, and return any personal property and documents seized at the time of his detention.”
“Respondents had the opportunity to dispute the facts alleged in the Petition, but declined to do so. ... Accordingly, the facts alleged in the Petition are undisputed and have been conceded by Respondents. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. ... For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
“Petitioner has failed to establish sufficient grounds for consideration of this matter on an emergency ex parte basis. Accordingly, his Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. No. 2, is DENIED. Such denial is procedural, and the Court is not addressing the substantive merits of the Petition at this time.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies because he seeks habeas review of the IJ's bond denial ahead of his pending appeal before the BIA.”
“As such, the facts set forth in the Petition, the legal arguments, and the relief requested are all uncontested. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition, but only to the extent of ordering the requested bond hearing.”
“The Court has read and considered all papers filed by each side. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
“After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Application, the Court GRANTS the Application, and issues the requested TRO and OSC as specified further below. ... [Petitioner] has further shown on the merits that a TRO should issue compelling her forthwith release, pending determination of a Preliminary Injunction or final determination on the Petition on its merits.”
“Having carefully considered the unopposed Petition, the Court GRANTS the Petition and issues a Writ of Habeas Corpus ordering Petitioner's immediate release from immigration custody.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 15 days (N = 11).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 15 days (N = 11).
The identified docket consists of 24 immigration-detention habeas cases filed from March through July 2026, largely involving Inland Empire detention facilities. Eleven had reached a final ruling, two had an interim temporary-restraining-order ruling, and nine remained pending. Although Roberts sits in Los Angeles, most of these matters arose in the district's Riverside and San Bernardino divisions.
Put Judge Roberts's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Roberts actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Roberts's own signed orders and cites them.