Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01685

#1

Mar 02, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Ruben Hurtado Diaz. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12974392) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Petitioner, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Reynolds, Keli) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#2

Mar 02, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Ruben Hurtado Diaz. (Attachments: # 1 TRO Checklist, # 2 Declaration of Counsel regarding notice, # 3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 4 Declaration of Petitioner, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Proposed Order)(Reynolds, Keli) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#3

Mar 02, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 4/6/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk RRB) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#4

Mar 02, 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: 03/02/2026)

#5

Mar 02, 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: 03/02/2026)

#6

Mar 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/2/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See, e.g., Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner's habeas petition] as law and justice require."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 3/4/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 3/5/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. Further, given the exigent circumstances present, pending the issuance of the court's Order resolving the pending 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and potentially the pending 1 Petition, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) ("The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."); A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (issuing order temporarily enjoining applicants' imminent removal pursuant to Section 1651 because the Court "had the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [the Court's] jurisdiction over the matter."). If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 3/2/2026 at 5:00 P.M. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#7

Mar 04, 2026

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#8

Mar 05, 2026

REPLY by Ruben Hurtado Diaz re 7 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 6 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,. (Reynolds, Keli) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#9

Mar 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/6/2026: In Respondents' 7 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents continue to oppose the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents acknowledge that the legal analysis in the decisions from this court in Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) are applicable to this case. (See Doc. No. 7 at 2 n.2). Although Respondents assert there are material factual differences between this case and those identified by the court because Respondents are seeking to remove Petitioner to a third country, Respondents must still comply with the applicable regulations regarding re-detention to effectuate removal. See Hoac, 2025 WL 1993771 at *4. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Hoac, Vuong, and El-Ghazaly, Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from Respondents' custody; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, strict compliance with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). Moreover, in light of Respondents' non-opposition to treating Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see Doc. No. 7 at 2), and given that the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction, Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms. This case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings