District of Nevada • 2:25-cv-01599

#1

Aug 27, 2025

First COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $405 receipt number BNVDC-8161415) by Eduardo Alvarado Gonzalez. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 9/6/2025. Proof of service due by 11/25/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Sull, Hardeep) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. (Entered: 08/27/2025)

Aug 27, 2025

Case randomly assigned to Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey and Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe. (RJDG)

#2

Aug 28, 2025

NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IA 11-2. Counsel Nicole R. Derden to comply with completion and filing of the Verified Petition and Designation of Local Counsel. The form is available on the Court's website - www.nvd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is required to register for the court's electronic filing system at PACER www.pacer.gov to register Attorney. Verified Petition due by 9/11/2025. (no image attached) (WJ) (Entered: 08/28/2025)

#3

Aug 28, 2025

Summons Issued as to USA

Aug 28, 2025

Notice Desig of Local Counsel & VP

Aug 28, 2025

Assign Judges in Civil Case

#4

Sep 05, 2025

Proposed Summons to be issued

#5

Sep 08, 2025

CLERK'S NOTICE. To date, a Certificate of Interested Parties has not been filed, pursuant to LR 7.1-1, by Eduardo Alvarado Gonzalez. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 9/15/2025. (no image attached) (WJ) (Entered: 09/08/2025)

#6

Sep 08, 2025

Summons Issued

Sep 08, 2025

QC Notice

#7

Sep 09, 2025

Certificate Interested Parties

#8

Sep 09, 2025

Motion Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition

#9

Sep 10, 2025

Order on Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice

#10

Sep 11, 2025

Order

#11

Sep 12, 2025

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#12

Sep 22, 2025

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#13

Sep 25, 2025

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

#14

Sep 26, 2025

Joinder

#15

Sep 29, 2025

Response

#16

Sep 30, 2025

Response

#17

Sep 30, 2025

Joinder

#18

Oct 23, 2025

Motion Temporary Restraining Order

#19

Oct 23, 2025

Order Reassign Judge

#20

Oct 23, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/23/2025.Pending before the Court is the 18 Motion for TRO. The Court finds expedited briefing and consideration of the Motion is warranted.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents have until 10/27/2025 to respond to the 18 Motion.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the sake of efficiency, that Respondents are granted leave to incorporate by reference the arguments in their 16 Response in opposing the 18 Motion. Respondents may also incorporate by reference their arguments in other related habeas matters before the undersigned Judge, so long as they file a copy of the referenced brief as an exhibit for Petitioner's review.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 10/23/2025)

Oct 23, 2025

Minute Order

#21

Oct 24, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/24/2025. Before the Court is the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas and the 18 First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Petitioner Eduardo Alvarado Gonzalez. A Hearing is set for 10/30/2025 at 12:15 PM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

Oct 24, 2025

Minute Order Setting Hearing on Motion

#22

Oct 27, 2025

Notice Other

#23

Oct 27, 2025

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#24

Oct 27, 2025

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

#25

Oct 27, 2025

Joinder

#26

Oct 27, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/27/2025.Pending before the Court is Respondent Warden John Mattos' 22 request for leave to appear remotely at the 10/30/2025 hearing set in this matter. Good cause appearing, the request is GRANTED. A Zoom invitation will be sent to counsel via email from the Court's administrator.Also pending is Respondents' 24 emergency request for an extension of time to respond to the 18 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the extension is GRANTED. Respondents have until 10/29/2025 at 3:00 p.m. to file their response.The Court also hereby provides notice of its intention, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), to CONSOLIDATE the 18 Motion for TRO with the merits of this matter at the 10/30/2025 hearing. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

Oct 27, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time

#27

Oct 29, 2025

Response

#28

Oct 29, 2025

Joinder

#29

Oct 30, 2025

Reply

#30

Oct 30, 2025

Exhibit

#31

Oct 30, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/30/2025.Pending before the Court is Petitioner's 18 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which is fully briefed. The Court converts Petitioner's Motion for a TRO into one for a preliminary injunction. Respondents had notice and a hearing as required under Rule 65. Fed. R. Civ. P 65(a). Because the standards for the two forms of relief are the same, and the Court finds there is no benefit in additional briefing, consideration of an injunction pending a decision on the merits of this matter, rather than more temporary relief, is warranted. On September 3, 2025, an Immigration Judge (IJ) of the Las Vegas Immigration Court found that Petitioner was neither a flight risk nor dangerous, and that Petitioner's continued detention pending the conclusion of removal proceedings was therefore not warranted. The IJ ordered Petitioner to be released on a $3,000 bond. Petitioner has remained detained since then pursuant to DHS' invocation of an automatic stay under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2), which this Court has already found unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, both facially and as applied to individuals like Petitioner. See Herrera v. Knight, No. 2:25-CV-01366-RFB-DJA, 2025 WL 2581792, at *9-12 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2025); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-CV-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *16-23 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025). This Court has similarly found that the basis for DHS' invocation of the automatic stay and the BIA's decision in Hurtado--a new reading of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) as applying to Petitioner despite the fact that he has resided continuously in the U.S. since 2003--is incorrect and unlawful. See Vazquez, 2025 WL 2676082, *11-16.The Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied the Winter factors and is entitled to a preliminary injunction ordering his release on bond consistent with the decision by the IJ. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the public interest favors an injunction. Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)).As an initial matter, the Court has habeas jurisdiction to review Petitioners challenge to the lawfulness of his detention, because the relevant jurisdiction stripping provisions of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 do not apply, as discussed and held by the Court in granting relief to similarly situated petitioners, which the Court fully incorporates by reference. See Vazquez, 2025 WL 2676082, at *7-9; Roman v. Noem, No. 2:25-CV-01684-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2710211, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2025). Further, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) does not apply to preclude this Courts review, because the Ninth Circuit has held that while the Attorney General's "discretionary judgment" is not subject to review, claims that the discretionary process itself is legally and constitutionally flawed are "cognizable in federal court on habeas because they fit comfortably within the scope of § 2241." Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 2002).The Court also fully incorporates by reference its finding that administrative exhaustion is excused as futile. See Herrera, 2025 WL 2581792, at *7-8; Vazquez, 2025 WL 2676082, at *9-10. The Court also fully incorporates by reference its reasoning and holding regarding the statutory question. Vazquez, WL 2676082, at *11-16.The Court further finds Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on the merits of his due process challenge to the automatic stay for the same reasons set forth in Herrera and Vazquez. "Due process requires adequate procedural protections to ensure that the government's asserted justification for physical confinement outweighs the individual's constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint." Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court finds, again, that the automatic stay provides no such procedural protections, and that the government's asserted justification for confinement--based solely on an unlawful reinterpretation of its detention authority under the INA--does not outweigh the continued deprivation of Petitioner's liberty.Further, it follows inexorably from the Court's determination that Petitioner will continue to be deprived of his physical liberty unconstitutionally in the absence of an injunction that Petitioner has met his burden to show immediate and irreparable harm. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 995 (9th Cir. 2017). Likewise, the minimal, if not nonexistent, burden on the government of preserving the status quo, i.e., ordering Petitioner's release consistent with the order of the IJ, as compared to the preventable human suffering, e.g., financial, emotional, and medical burdens on both Petitioner and his family in addition to the fundamental harm of arbitrary detention without meaningful due process, demonstrates that the balance of the equities and public interest tip sharply in Petitioner's favor. Id. at 995-96 ("the public interest benefits from an injunction that ensures that individuals are not deprived of their liberty and held in immigration detention because of... likely unconstitutional process.). Finally, the Court notes that Petitioner's release will best enable him to pursue his pending application for Adjustment of Status to U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident pursuant to INA § 245(i) before USCIS, which will likely lead to the termination of removal proceedings. That fact also demonstrates that the government has no legitimate interest in continuing to detain Petitioner for removal proceedings, and that the balance of hardships weighs heavily in Petitioner's favor.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's 18 Motion for TRO is converted to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from continuing to detain Petitioner pursuant to the C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) automatic stay or otherwise denying Petitioner release on bond on the basis that he is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents must release Petitioner from custody by 7:00 p.m. on October 30, 2025. Petitioner shall be subject to the bond and other conditions imposed by the IJ.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have until 5:00 p.m. on November 7, 2025 to satisfy the bond conditions. If he does not satisfy them, he will be subject to rearrest and detention.A full written order on the 1 Petition will follow.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 10/30/2025)

#32

Oct 30, 2025

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 10/30/2025 before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Crtrm Administrator: D Smith; Pla Counsel: Dee Sull via video conference; Def Counsel: Virginia Tomova in person and Ashlee Hessman via video; Court Reporter: P. Ganci; Time of Hearing: 12:25 - 12:41; Courtroom: 7C; The Court hears from parties as to the 1 Complaint and the 18 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner shall supplement the record today as instructed. This matter is taken under advisement; an order shall issue. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the 18 Motion to Extend is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 10/30/2025)

Oct 30, 2025

Motion Hearing AND Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time AND ~Util - Terminate Deadlines/Hearings

Oct 30, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

#33

Nov 29, 2025

Motion Attorney Fees

#34

Dec 15, 2025

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

#35

Dec 22, 2025

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

#36

Jan 21, 2026

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

#37

Feb 20, 2026

Response

#38

Feb 20, 2026

Errata

#39

May 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/26/2026. Before the Court for consideration is the 33 First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Petitioner Eduardo Alvarado Gonzalez. (Postjudgment),and the related 34, 35, and 36 Motions to Extend Time. A Motion Hearing is set for 6/22/2026 at 12:45 PM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Minute Order Setting Hearing on Motion

#40

May 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 5/29/2026. Due to a conflict with the Court's calendar, the hearing set for 6/22/2026 is VACATED and RESET as follows: Motion Hearing is reset for 6/24/2026 at 12:45 PM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Minute Order Setting Hearing on Motion

#41

Jun 24, 2026

Motion Continue Hearing or Trial

#42

Jun 24, 2026

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#43

Jun 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/24/2026. ORDER Granting in part the 41 Motion to Continue. The Motion hearing set for today at 12:45 p.m. is VACATED but will not be reset. The Court shall issue it's ruling on the pleadings and record of this Court. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

#44

Jun 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/24/2026.Before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 33 ) and Respondents' related motions to extend (ECF Nos. 34, 35, 36 ). For the following reasons, the Court denies these motions.By way of background, Petitioner seeks attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). See generally First Mot. for Attorney Fees, ECF No. 33 (Nov. 29, 2025) [hereinafter, "Mot. for Fees"]. Broadly speaking, the EAJA "requires a court to award 'reasonable attorney fees' to 'a prevailing party other than the United States' in 'any civil action'... that [is] 'brought by or against the United States,'... 'unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.'" Nerio Mejia v. O'Malley, 120 F.4th 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), (2)(A)). Under the EAJA, "[a] party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall... submit to the court an application for fees and other expenses which... include[s] an itemized statement from any attorney... representing... the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Critically, this statutory requirement is not a mere formality. Rather, it empowers the Court to independently review the reasonableness of a fee request, which the Court is required to do. See Nerio Mejia, 120 F.4th at 1364 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) ("Once a plaintiff has shown an entitlement to 'reasonable' attorneys' fees under the EAJA..., it 'remains for the district court to determine what fee is "reasonable."'").Even if Petitioner satisfies all the other requirements of the EAJA, he has failed to submit an itemized statement of his attorney(s)'s fees and expenses. Granted, Petitioner's Counsel expressly claims that she has submitted a "detailed itemization" alongside the Motion for Attorney's Fees. See Mot. for Fees at 7. Based on this representation, the Court has scoured the record and found nothing. Therefore, the Court must conclude that Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees is procedurally deficient, such that the Motion must be denied at this time.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 33 ) is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to re-file. Specifically, Petitioner has up to, and including, July 23, 2026, to re-file his request. In doing so, Petitioner's Counsel should take care to satisfy all of the procedural requirements of the EAJA, as well as this Court's local rules of practice.Consequently, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents' related Motions to Extend (ECF Nos. 34, 35, 36 ) are DENIED as moot, as the Court need not consider Respondents' opposition at this time.Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner must file a status report which outlines the remaining issues in this case. In doing so, Petitioner must indicate: (i.) whether his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot and (ii.) if, and how, the Court's recent partial summary judgment in Jacobo Ramirez v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2026 WL 879799 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2026) affects his pending petition. Petitioner has up to, and including, July 3, 2026, to do so. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLQ) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Continue Hearing AND ~Util - Terminate Deadlines/Hearings

Jun 24, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Attorney Fees AND Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time AND Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time AND Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time

#45

Jul 23, 2026

Motion Attorney Fees