Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00635

#1

Jan 26, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons by Emmanuel Gutierrez Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Gorney, Nicole) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#2

Jan 26, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/2/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk RMG) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#3

Jan 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Todd Lyons (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#4

Jan 26, 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. (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

Jan 26, 2026

RECEIPT number ACAEDC-12807197 $5.00 paid on 01/26/26 by Nicole Alicia Gorney. (Deputy Clerk CM)

#5

Jan 27, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#6

Jan 27, 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. (Gorney, Nicole) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#7

Jan 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) ORDER DENYING TRO ANDORDER PREVENTING TRANSFER PENDING FURTHER COURT ORDERAND ORDER FOR STAY OF REMOVAL PENDING FURTHER COURT ORDERThe Court has reviewed the Petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1 ) and the related request for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 5 ). Petitioner asserts that he has been detained since December 4, 2025, more than seven weeks ago. Counsel indicates she is acting pro bono and has had difficulties communicating with Petitioner. (Doc. 5 -1 at 1.) While the Court acknowledges this explanation, this is true of many of those held in detention and does not adequately explain the delay in seeking a temporary restraining order or why, despite this delay, the Court should treat the situation as an emergency. Thus, the TRO request is untimely, and it is DENIED. Local Rule 231(b).The Court refers the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for a determination on the merits. The Court sets the following briefing schedule, which may be modified by the magistrate judge as needed. Respondents SHALL file their responsive pleading within 30 days. Therein, Respondents are directed to address whether this case is distinguishable from the numerous cases in which this Court has granted habeas relief and SHALL provide the Court with copies of any portions of Petitioner's A-File or related supervision records Respondents rely upon. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than 15 days after Respondents file their brief. In the meantime, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Court ORDERS that Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States nor transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting the court's "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, the Court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and any subsequent order and finds that Petitioner has satisfied the factors governing the issuance of such preliminary relief. No later than January 28, 2026, to the extent not already accomplished, Petitioner is directed: (1) to serve Respondents with a copy of the Petition, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail (noting Petitioner's name and A-File number in the memo line) to all appropriate recipients including the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California, with a copy to usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov, and by overnight mail; and (2) promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter notices of appearance signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on January 28, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Jan 29, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#9

Jan 30, 2026

06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response

#10

Jan 30, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#11

Jan 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) On January 26, 2026, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, (Doc. 1 ), along with a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 5 ). On January 28, 2026, the TRO request was denied as untimely, and the Court set a briefing schedule to address the petition on the merits. (Doc. 7 .) On January 30, 2036, Petitioner filed a renewed request for a TRO that offers no new facts but instead demands that the Court issue an order to show cause with a 5-day return deadline and direct Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from their custody. (Doc. 10 .) The request is an apparent reference to the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. 2243. However, this Court has discretion to set a briefing schedule for a section 2241 petition that does not strictly conform to the timelines set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2243. See Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474-75 (9th Cir. 1985). It has done so here. The Court understands Petitioner's desire to have his petition resolved as expeditiously as possible, but he has not identified in his motion any factors specific to his case which would warrant deviation from the schedule set by the Court signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on January 30, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Minute Order

#12

Feb 02, 2026

AMENDED MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) On January 26, 2026, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, (Doc. 1 ), along with a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 5 ). On January 28, 2026, the TRO request was denied as untimely, and the Court set a briefing schedule to address the petition on the merits. (Doc. 7 .) On January 30, 2036, Petitioner filed a renewed request for a TRO that offers no new facts but instead demands that the Court issue an order to show cause with a 5-day return deadline and direct Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from their custody. (Doc. 10 .) The request is an apparent reference to the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. 2243. However, this Court has discretion to set a briefing schedule for a section 2241 petition that does not strictly conform to the timelines set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2243. See Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474-75 (9th Cir. 1985). It has done so here. The Court understands Petitioner's desire to have his petition resolved as expeditiously as possible, but he has not identified in his motion any factors specific to his case which would warrant deviation from the schedule set by the Court. Thus, the renewed TRO request is DENIED signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on February 2, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#13

Feb 24, 2026

Dismiss

#14

Mar 02, 2026

Opposition to Motion