Central District of California • 5:26-cv-00575

#1

Feb 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In Federal Custody (28:2241) Case assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym.(Filing fee $ 5 PAID), filed by Petitioner Yan Lu. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 of Petition, # 2 Part 3 of Petition, # 3 Part 4 of Petition, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet) (car) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#2

Feb 09, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Petitioner Yan Lu, (car) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#3

Feb 09, 2026

MEMORANDUM of Law In Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. 2241, 1 filed by Petitioner Yan Lu. (car) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#4

Feb 10, 2026

NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, who is authorized to consider preliminary matters and conduct all further hearings as may be appropriate or necessary. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.4, the Court must be notified within five (5) days of any address change. See notice for additional details. (car) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#5

Feb 13, 2026

Order Requiring Return/Answer to Petition

#6

Feb 13, 2026

Proof of Service (subsequent documents)

#7

Feb 26, 2026

Response

#8

Mar 16, 2026

Order

#9

Mar 16, 2026

Declaration (Motion related)

#10

Mar 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

#11

Mar 22, 2026

Motion Related Document

#12

Mar 22, 2026

Reply (Motion related)

#13

Mar 24, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)

#14

Apr 01, 2026

Supplement (Motion related)

#15

Apr 01, 2026

Supplement (Motion related)

#16

Apr 02, 2026

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

#17

Apr 02, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#18

Apr 02, 2026

Objection/Opposition (Motion related)

#19

Apr 03, 2026

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. 17 ) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: On April 2, 2026, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order. Dkt. 17 ("Application"). The Application is almost identical to the surreply that Petitioner filed on April 1, 2026, Dkt. 16 ("Surreply"), in support of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Through the Application, Petitioner seeks release from immigration detention based on alleged constitutional violations and legal errors by the immigration judge during Petitioner's March 30, 2026 bond hearing. That hearing was conducted, as required, following Petitioner's detention for at least six months during pending removal proceedings. See generally Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). Respondents filed an opposition to the Application on April 2, 2026. Dkt. 18 ("Opposition"). Also on April 2, 2026, Magistrate Judge Pym issued an order directing Respondents to file a response to the Surreply, by April 6, 2026, that addressed specific issues. Dkt. 16 at 2. The issues included the following: "(1) addressing petitioner's argument that his continued detention following a stroke in poor conditions of confinement violates his right to substantive due process; (2) addressing petitioner's argument that his Rodriguez hearing was defective, including the procedures followed, legal standard applied, and bases for the immigration judge's decision; if available, respondents shall include a transcript or audio recording of the hearing; and (3) either produce a copy of petitioner's Interpol Red Notice or concede no such Red Notice exists." Id. Respondents filed their response to the Application on April 2, 2026, but have not yet filed a response to the Surreply pursuant to Judge Pym's order. Dkt. 18. Because the Surreply and the Application raise overlapping issues, to advance judicial and party efficiency, Respondents shall, in their response to the Surreply filed on or before April 6, 2026, address the following additional matter: If there is no contemporaneous record of the March 30, 2026 hearing before the immigration judge, whether any issue is presented under Rodriguez v. Robbins, which states that "bond hearings that conform to [certain] procedural requirements," including the maintenance of a contemporaneous record of the hearing, are necessary to satisfy due process. 715 F.3d at 1136, 1139. Petitioner may file any response on or before April 8, 2026. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jg) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/03/2026)

Apr 03, 2026

Text Only Scheduling Notice

#20

Apr 06, 2026

Notice of Lodging

#21

Apr 06, 2026

Response

#22

Apr 08, 2026

Reply (Motion related)

#23

Apr 15, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#24

Apr 16, 2026

Status Report

#25

Apr 23, 2026

Reply

#26

May 07, 2026

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

#27

May 08, 2026

Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held

#28

May 22, 2026

Dismiss Case

#29

May 22, 2026

Deficiency in Filed Documents (G-112A) - optional html form

#30

May 26, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case