Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00569

#1

Jan 23, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Petra Aurora Aguilar Calvillo. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12798827) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#2

Jan 23, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Petra Aurora Aguilar Calvillo. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#3

Jan 23, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 2/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#4

Jan 23, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Petra Aurora Aguilar Calvillo re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#5

Jan 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/23/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 1/27/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before 1/28/2026. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 12:00 PM on 1/26/2026. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#6

Jan 27, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#7

Jan 27, 2026

REPLY by Petra Aurora Aguilar Calvillo re 6 Opposition to Motion. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#8

Jan 30, 2026

CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Anonymous) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#9

Jan 31, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#10

Feb 10, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Barton, Joseph) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#11

Feb 10, 2026

REPLY to 10 Status Report and REQUEST for Immediate Release by Petra Aurora Aguilar Calvillo. (Beles, Robert) Modified on 2/19/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#12

Feb 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/25/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 11 Request for immediate relief. Respondents shall file a response by 5:00 PM on 2/27/2026. Petitioner may file a reply by 3/2/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#13

Feb 27, 2026

RESPONSE to 11 Request for Immediate Release by Respondents. (Barton, Joseph) Modified on 3/5/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#14

Mar 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 03/06/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 11 request for immediate release and Respondents' 13 response thereto. In her request, Petitioner asserts that an immigration judge placed the burden on her to show that she is not a flight risk or a danger to public safety, contrary to the court's 9 order, which required that Petitioner be given a bond hearing "in which Respondents must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the alleged changed circumstances demonstrate that Petitioner is either a flight risk or a danger to public safety, such that her detention is justified." (Doc. No. 11 at 2) (quoting Doc. No. 9 at 5). In their response, Respondents do not dispute that the immigration judge placed the burden on Petitioner but argue that the court's order was unclear as to whom should bear the burden. (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) To be clear, the court ordered that Respondents show, "by clear and convincing evidence," that Petitioner's continued detention is justified because that is the proper standard where, as here, a noncitizen has previously been released based upon a determination that the noncitizen was not a flight risk or threat to public safety. See, e.g., J.E.H.G. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01673-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3523108, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) ("[T]he immigrant's initial release reflected a determination by the government that the noncitizen is not a danger to the community or a flight risk. Since it is the government that initiated re-detention, it follows that the government should be required to bear the burden of providing a justification for the re-detention.") To further clarify the court's order, the court ORDERS that within seven (7) days from the date of this order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner a renewed bond hearing before an immigration judge at which Respondents bear the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is either a flight risk or a danger to public safety such that her continued detention is justified. If Respondents do not provide Petitioner a bond hearing applying the burden of proof as ordered within seven days, Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner on the same terms as her 2016 parole. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRN) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#15

Mar 16, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#16

Mar 24, 2026

Preliminary Injunction

#17

Mar 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/25/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 16 Motion for Immediate Release and Amended Habeas Petition. In her Motion, Petitioner argues that (1) Petitioner's immigration detention has become unreasonably prolonged such that her continued detention violates her right to due process (Doc. No. 16 at 2-3); and (2) Petitioner was unlawfully detained without a warrant in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id. at 3-4.) As to prolonged detention, this court has found that noncitizens subject to immigration detention of a comparable duration to Petitioner are entitled to a bond hearing at which the Government bears the burden of justifying the Petitioner's continued detention. See, e.g., Nasar v. Warden of the California City Det. Ctr., No. 2:26-cv-00433-DC-AC, 2026 WL 731160, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026). However, as Petitioner concedes, she has already been granted such a bond hearing by this court. (Doc. No. 16-1 at 1.) To the extent Petitioner argues the evidence considered by the immigration judge was insufficient to meet the Government's burden, that is an argument to be raised to the Board of Immigration Appeals, not this court. Loba L.M. v. D.A.L.M., No. 1:25-cv-00611-JLT-SAB, 2026 WL 710307, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Marc. 13, 2026) ("Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the immigration judge's bond determination rather than the constitutionality of the process by which that determination was reached... Complaints about the conclusion the IJ reached must be presented through the normal immigration appeal process."). As to her argument that her detention is unlawful because Respondents did not obtain a warrant, Petitioner did not assert a claim in her Habeas Petition regarding a warrantless arrest. Thus, Petitioner cannot predicate her Motion for Immediate release on this argument. Petitioner's 16 Motion is therefore DENIED. To the extent Petitioner contends that her Motion for Immediate Release constitutes an Amended Petition, Petitioner filed the "Amended Petition" without leave of court, despite the court previously deeming her Habeas Petition "submitted on the record [] before the court without any additional briefing." (Doc. No. 15.) If Petitioner now wishes to file an Amended Petition, she may seek the court's leave to do so. This case is REFERRED back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#18

Mar 26, 2026

Amend the Complaint/Petition

#19

Mar 26, 2026

Exhibit

#20

Mar 27, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Amend the Complaint AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings