Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01597

#1

Feb 25, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden Golden State Annex Detention Facility by Mauricio Andres Francisco. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12957342) (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#2

Feb 25, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Mauricio Andres Francisco. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#3

Feb 25, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Mauricio Andres Francisco. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#4

Feb 25, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#5

Feb 25, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Mauricio Andres Francisco re 2 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 3 Civil Cover Sheet, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#6

Feb 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/25/2026: (Text Only Entry).Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 2 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Petitioner has already filed a 5 proof of service for the 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Accordingly, counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM tomorrow, 2/26/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decision in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), 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 CGH) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#7

Feb 25, 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: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Feb 26, 2026

Dismiss

#9

Feb 26, 2026

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#10

Feb 27, 2026

REPLY by Mauricio Andres Francisco re 9 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#11

Feb 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/27/2026: On 2/25/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 2/26/2026, respondents filed an opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to the motion. In that opposition, respondents argue that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention by virtue of being present in the United States, an argument that the undersigned has rejected on several recent occasions. See Wasef v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP (HC), 2026 WL 392389 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026) (rejecting the respondents' interpretation of § 1225). Respondents also note that petitioner has had two prior arrests for driving without a license, but make no argument pertaining to those misdemeanor arrests. Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the undersigned's previous order in Rangel v. Noem, 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), in which the court concluded that the petitioner was within the "Bond Eligible Class" certified by Bautista v. Santacruz, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. 2025), and was accordingly entitled to a bond hearing. Here, petitioner arrived in the United States in 2003 and was detained by immigration authorities for the first time on January 28, 2026. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) In their opposition, respondents state that they do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 9 at 1-2.) Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Rangel, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED IN PART. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order; and (2) Petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order requiring respondents to immediately release him from confinement is DENIED without prejudice. Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This action is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO