Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00579

#1

Jan 26, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Jan 26, 2026

In Forma Pauperis

#3

Jan 26, 2026

Appoint Counsel

Jan 26, 2026

RECEIPT number 100007026 for $5.00 for filing fee from Geo Secure Service for Ricardo Ocampos-Conteras. (Deputy Clerk RRB)

#4

Jan 27, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#5

Jan 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/27/2026: On 1/23/2026, petitioner filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus that appears to contain a request for emergency relief. If petitioner seeks emergency relief, the court DIRECTS petitioner to file a motion for temporary restraining order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

Jan 27, 2026

Service by Mail

Jan 27, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Minute Order served on Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Jan 27, 2026

Minute Order

Jan 28, 2026

Service by Mail

Jan 28, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Order served on Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Deputy Clerk KS)

#6

Jan 29, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#7

Jan 29, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Calvin Lee, GOVT for Warden (Lee, Calvin) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#8

Jan 29, 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: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Service by Mail

Jan 29, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 6 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

Jan 29, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#9

Jan 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/30/2026: Pursuant to the Order appointing counsel dated 1/27/2026 (ECF No. 4 ), the appointing authority for the Eastern District of California has confirmed that attorney Alekxia L. Torres Stallings seeks appointment nunc pro tunc to 1/29/2026 and notified of Counsel's contact information. Attorney Alekxia L. Torres Stallings is hereby APPOINTED pro hac vice as CJA counsel for petitioner as permitted in General Order 582, Section X (C). The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to reflect Attorney Alekxia L. Torres Stallings, Torres Torres Stallings and Associates, 1318 K Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301, 661-326-0857, lextorres@lawtorres.com as counsel for petitioner on an ad hoc basis in this matter. (Text Only Entry) (cc: Federal Defender Habeas Appointment) (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Service by Mail

Jan 30, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Minute Order served on Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Deputy Clerk NAC)

Jan 30, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Feb 06, 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. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#11

Feb 09, 2026

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER Briefing Schedule by Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Torres Stallings, Alekxia) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#12

Feb 10, 2026

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

#13

Feb 12, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#14

Feb 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/13/2026: On 1/23/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus. On 1/30/2026, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Peterson's 4, 9 orders, Attorney Torres Stallings was appointed as petitioner's counsel. On 2/12/2026, petitioner filed a 13 motion for temporary restraining order. Pro se filings by a represented party are improper. See Riel v. Warden, San Quentin State Prison, No. 2:01-cv-0507-MCE-DB, 2023 WL 2413825, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023); United States v. Brayshaw, No. 2:14-mc-00088-MCE-KJN, 2018 WL 534120, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (noting that under Rule 11, a party "cannot both be represented and file her own motions"). Therefore, the court denies the 13 motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to a properly filed motion. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order

#15

Feb 19, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#16

Feb 23, 2026

SUPPLEMENT to 15 First Amended Petition and Request for Temporary Restraining Order by Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Torres Stallings, Alekxia) Modified on 2/24/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#17

Feb 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 15 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 15 motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 15 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM tomorrow, 2/25/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decision in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026) or Arshakyam v. Warden of California City Det., No. 1:25-cv-01780-DAD-AC (HC), 2026 WL 143143 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Furthermore, respondents are directed to indicate in their opposition whether they oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order

#18

Feb 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/26/2026: On 1/23/2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 1 .) On 1/29/2026, counsel for respondent appeared. (Doc. No. 7 .) On 2/19/2026, petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order in which he alleges that he entered the United States on an unknown date over 25 years ago, and in June or July of 2025, over six months ago, he was arrested by immigration authorities without any warning, paperwork, or legitimate reason. (Doc. No. 15 at 2-3.) On 2/24/2026, the court set a briefing schedule on petitioner's pending motion, ordering respondent to file any opposition to petitioner's motion by 2/25/2026 at 5:00 PM and to substantively address in that opposition whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the situations addressed by this court's decisions in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026) or Arshakyam v. Warden of California City Det., No. 1:25-cv-01780-DAD-AC (HC), 2026 WL 143143 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026). (Doc. No. 17.) Respondent has yet to file an opposition to petitioner's pending motion. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as set forth in Rangel and Arshakyam, petitioner's unopposed motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 15 ) is GRANTED in part, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondent is ORDERED to provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order; and (2) petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order requiring respondent to immediately release him from confinement is DENIED without prejudice. Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

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

#19

Mar 09, 2026

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Briefing Schedule by Parties. (Torres Stallings, Alekxia) Modified on 3/12/2026 (KS). (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#20

Mar 20, 2026

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

#21

Mar 27, 2026

RESPONSE to 2/26/2026 Minute Order by Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Form I-485, # 2 Exhibit FBI Rap Sheet, # 3 Exhibit Unofficial Bond Hearing Transcript)(Torres Stallings, Alekxia) Modified on 3/30/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#22

Apr 08, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/8/2026: On 3/27/2026, petitioner filed a response to the court's 2/26/2026 minute order, which the court construes as a motion to enforce the judgment. (Doc. No. 21 .) In that motion, petitioner argues that the bond hearing he was provided as directed in the court's order was deficient. (Id. at 3-4.) Pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 381017 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2026), the court finds that petitioner's motion must be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Even if the court were to reach the merits of the pending motion, the court would not be persuaded by petitioner's arguments. Petitioner argues that the immigration judge misallocated the burden of proof to petitioner and applied the clear and convincing standard against the detainee. (Doc. No. 21 at 3-4.) However, it appears that the immigration judge did not improperly impose the burden of proof on petitioner but instead stated that "the department has shown by clear and convincing evidence that [petitioner is] a danger and a flight risk." (Doc. No. 21-3 at 10.) Moreover, petitioner's argument regarding factual assumptions is beyond the scope of this court's review authority. (Doc. No. 21 at 4.) Finally, petitioner argues that there was no individualized assessment of danger or flight risk and that the bond hearing was not meaningful. (Id.) The court is not persuaded by this argument where the hearing involved detailed arguments from the government regarding the basis for the immigration judge's findings with respect to flight risk and danger. (Doc. No. 21-3.) Accordingly, petitioner's motion to enforce the judgment (Doc. No 21 ) is DENIED. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

Minute Order

#23

Apr 13, 2026

06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response

#24

Apr 20, 2026

Dismiss

#25

May 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/1/2026: On 4/20/2026, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 24 .) Petitioner was ordered to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within seven days of that motion. (See ECF No. 23 at 2.) However, to date, petitioner has not filed a response. Accordingly, petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than 5/4/2026 as to why respondent's motion should not be granted. If petitioner does not file an opposition by that time, the court will construe the failure to do so as a non-opposition to respondent's motion. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

Minute Order

#26

May 04, 2026

RESPONSE to 25 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Ricardo Ocampo-Contreras. (Torres Stallings, Alekxia) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

#27

May 04, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#28

Jun 24, 2026

Findings and Recommendations