Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01198
(HC) Andrades Gonzalez v. Chestnut
Active
Case Information
Filed: February 11, 2026
Assigned to:
Dale Alan Drozd
Referred to:
Carolyn K. Delaney
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Active
Last Activity:
February 19, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
Feb 11, 2026
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Kristi Noem by Mariscela Patricia Andrades Gonzalez. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12888812) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 02/11/2026)
Main Document:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Feb 11, 2026
MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and Release from Custody by Mariscela Patricia Andrades Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 02/11/2026)
Main Document:
Preliminary Injunction
#3
Feb 11, 2026
PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/16/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LAO) (Entered: 02/11/2026)
Main Document:
Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider
#4
Feb 11, 2026
DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Ihsan U. Ahmed for Moises Becerra,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Pamela Bondi,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Christopher Chestnut,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Kristi Noem (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 02/11/2026)
Main Document:
DESIGNATION
#5
Feb 11, 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: 02/11/2026)
Main Document:
CONSENT/DECLINE
#6
Feb 11, 2026
MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/11/2026: On 2/11/2026, petitioner filed a 2 motion for preliminary injunction in which she requests that the court order that respondents immediately release her. This motion is noticed pursuant to Local Rule 230, however the governing notice procedures for motions for temporary restraining orders and motions for preliminary injunction are provided by Local Rule 231. Petitioner's brief indicates that petitioner filed that brief in compliance with Local Rule 231. The court therefore CONSTRUES petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction as an ex parte motion for temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction. The briefing schedule set by the provisions of Local Rule 230 is hereby VACATED and the court sets the date and deadline for opposition below.Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction no later than 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 2/12/2026. 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 Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), or Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 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 PAB) (Entered: 02/11/2026)
Feb 11, 2026
Minute Order
#7
Feb 12, 2026
MOTION to DISMISS, ANSWER (Response) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by All Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Ahmed, Ihsan) Modified on 2/17/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/12/2026)
Main Document:
MOTION
#8
Feb 19, 2026
REPLY by Mariscela Patricia Andrades Gonzalez re 7 Motion to Dismiss,. (Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 02/19/2026)
Main Document:
REPLY
Parties
Chestnut
Party
(HC) Andrades Gonzalez
Party