Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00258

#1

Jan 13, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden Golden State Annex by Fabricio Moises Acosta Paredes. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12754723) (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

#2

Jan 13, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Jan 13, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Fabricio Moises Acosta Paredes. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

#4

Jan 13, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#5

Jan 13, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#6

Jan 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/13/2026: (Text Only Entry).Pending the issuance of the courts order resolving the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that respondents shall not take any action to remove petitioner from the United States or to move petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (acknowledging the courts express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction). Given the exigent circumstances present, the court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending its forthcoming order resolving petitioner's pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 1/14/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 1/15/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this courts decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Deputy Clerk CGH) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

Jan 13, 2026

Minute Order

Jan 15, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

Feb 26, 2026

Order