Diana M. Kwok
How Judge Kwok decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In post-release re-detention habeas cases, she applies the Mathews v. Eldridge three-factor procedural due-process test as her standard analytical framework, and treats an undisputed factual record -- especially an answer that takes no opposing position -- as effectively conceding the petition under the district's local rules.
“To determine whether detention violates procedural due process, courts frequently apply the three-part test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).”
Where the government's answer states only that it is 'not presenting an opposition argument,' she construes the petition as unopposed and grants it without requiring further merits briefing.
“The Court thus construes the petition as unopposed.”
Procedural preferences
When a petitioner files an emergency ex parte application for a temporary restraining order alongside a habeas petition already on the district's expedited Section 2241 briefing schedule, she routinely denies the TRO as unwarranted, reasoning that the underlying petition itself will be decided quickly enough that emergency relief is unnecessary -- a recurring, near-identical ruling across several cases in this docket.
“In light of the expedited briefing schedule set forth in General Order No. 26-05 on the underlying habeas petition, it is not certain that the merits of the TRO Application can be decided before the merits of the habeas petition are decided. ... Accordingly, Petitioner's Application is DENIED.”
Cautions
She treats the certified bond-eligible class in a related class action (Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz / Noem) as controlling: when a petitioner falls within that class, she orders the relief the class judgment specifies (an individualized bond hearing, or release if one is not timely held) rather than independently re-litigating the underlying due-process question.
“Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner appears to be a member of the bond-eligible class in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz ... The Court agrees.”
She enforces procedural correctness strictly: when a petitioner filed what was effectively a duplicate of an already-pending petition (after a clerical intra-district transfer produced two case numbers for the same filing), she dismissed the duplicate with prejudice as to that filing and ordered the corrected petition refiled in the surviving case.
“Because duplicative cases are impermissible, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice. Petitioner is ordered to file the corrected petition, with the required signatures, as a ‘First Amended Petition’ in Ernesto Nieto v. Todd M. Lyons et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-02952-DMK within 48 hours of service of this Order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Petition as follows: (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately on Petitioner's prior conditions of release”
“Respondents must release Petitioners from custody within 24 hours of entry of this Order, and on each of Petitioners' prior conditions of release”
“the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to establish that she is entitled to habeas relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 2241, and therefore DENIES the petition without prejudice.”
“the Mathews factors weigh in favor of granting the Petition ... (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Petition as follows: (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately on Petitioner's prior conditions of release”
“the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be provided with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proof, within seven (7) days”
“Accordingly, the Petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART. It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Within seven (7) days of this Order, Respondents shall afford Petitioner a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an immigration judge.”
“Petitioner's First Request for Relief is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents must release Petitioner from custody immediately”
“Respondents are DIRECTED to release Petitioner Santos Francisco Mantanico Puac ... FORTHWITH.”
“the petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED. Petitioner ... is hereby ORDERED RELEASED from ICE custody immediately”
“the petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 is GRANTED. Petitioner Karen Maria Ampie ... is hereby ORDERED RELEASED from ICE custody immediately”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her docket to date consists almost entirely of 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 habeas corpus petitions filed by noncitizens detained at the Adelanto Detention Facility, the Desert View Detention Facility/Annex, and similar Southern California ICE facilities, challenging re-detention after a period of conditional release. One criminal matter, United States v. Jucup-Perez, had no order signed by her at the evidence cutoff and is not counted. Given the single-case-type nature of this docket, the caseload mix below is intentionally narrow rather than a general civil or criminal profile.
Put Judge Kwok's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Kwok actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Kwok's own signed orders and cites them.