Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00913

(HC) Vargas Silva v. Golden State Annex Warden

Active

Case Information

Filed: February 02, 2026
Assigned to: Dale Alan Drozd
Referred to: Chi Soo Kim
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Active
Last Activity: February 06, 2026
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#1
Feb 02, 2026
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against JESUS VARGAS SILVA by JESUS VARGAS SILVA. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12846219) (Ramos, Julio) (Entered: 02/02/2026)
Main Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Feb 02, 2026
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by JESUS VARGAS SILVA. (Ramos, Julio) (Entered: 02/02/2026)
Main Document: CIVIL
#3
Feb 02, 2026
EX PARTE APPLICATION by JESUS VARGAS SILVA for TRO. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration Julio J Ramos in support of TRO., # 2 Exhibit A - G)(Ramos, Julio) (Entered: 02/02/2026)
Main Document: Ex Parte Application
#4
Feb 03, 2026
PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk EF) (Entered: 02/03/2026)
Main Document: Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider
#5
Feb 03, 2026
DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Golden State Annex Warden,Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Polly Kaiser,Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Rodriguez, Camilo) (Entered: 02/03/2026)
Main Document: DESIGNATION
#6
Feb 03, 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: 02/03/2026)
Main Document: CONSENT/DECLINE
#7
Feb 03, 2026
MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/3/2026: (Text Only Entry).Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 3 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 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 present, the court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending its forthcoming order resolving petitioner's pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 2/4/2026, 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 Attorney's 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 2/5/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR (HC), 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), 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 CAL) (Entered: 02/03/2026)
Feb 03, 2026
Minute Order
#9
Feb 06, 2026
Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case
Main Document: Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case
#10
Feb 06, 2026
Judgment
Main Document: Judgment