Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-00670

#1

Mar 02, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#2

Mar 02, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux. (Deputy Clerk OML) (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 OML) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#4

Mar 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/2/2026: 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 courts 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. In light of petitioner's pro se status, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED 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 Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. 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, 3/3/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), 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: 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)

Mar 02, 2026

Minute Order

Mar 02, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux. (Deputy Clerk OML)

Mar 02, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Mar 02, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 02, 2026

RECEIPT number 200017355 for $5.00 Habeas Filing Fee. (Deputy Clerk AMW)

#6

Mar 03, 2026

RESPONSE to 3/2/2026 Minute Order, OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief and ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 3/4/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#7

Mar 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/4/2026: On 3/2/2026, petitioner, appearing pro se, filed a motion for temporary restraining order in which he alleges that he entered the United States lawfully on a valid visa, petitioner is currently detained, and on 1/5/2026 appeared before an immigration judge for a custody redetermination hearing, and the immigration judge denied bond "based solely on a finding that [p]etitioner allegedly posed a 'risk of flight.'" (Doc. No. 2 at 3.) In their opposition respondents clarify that petitioner has now been in detention for three months. (Doc. No. 6 at 4.) Petitioner's chief complaint appears to be that the immigration judge denied him release on bond based on a finding of risk of flight, as opposed to dangerousness. (Doc. No. 2 at 3, 5.) An immigration judge may deny bond based on the detainee's "dangerousness or risk of flight[,]" and as such petitioner has not demonstrated that the immigration judge erred. Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (emphasis added). Because petitioner has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his petition, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 04, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux. (Deputy Clerk JRM)

Mar 04, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Mar 10, 2026

Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Mar 10, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 10, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 8 Order served on Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

#9

Mar 20, 2026

TRAVERSE by Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux re 6 Response. (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#10

May 13, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#11

May 27, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#12

May 28, 2026

Notice (Other)

#13

May 28, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#14

Jun 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/03/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 13 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 13 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, the court has conducted a preliminary review of the pending motion and petition for writ of habeas corpus and observes that this case may involve core issues that the undersigned has previously addressed in this context. Accordingly, the parties are advised that if the court concludes that petitioner is entitled to the relief that is requested in the pending motion, then the court will also rule on the merits of the underlying petition. 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."); Dzhabrailov v. Decker, No. 20-cv-03118-PMH, 2020 WL 2731966 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2020) (considering the merits of the habeas petition and motion for preliminary injunction simultaneously). Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 13 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 6/4/2026. 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 Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025); Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025); Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026); Cardenas v. Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026); J.P.C. v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-02108-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 788129 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. The court will construe failure to distinguish the above cited cases as a concession that the cases are not substantively distinguishable. If respondents oppose this court ruling on the underlying petition, then respondents are DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in their opposition.(Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRN) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

Jun 03, 2026

Service by Mail

Jun 03, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 14 Minute Order, served on Wagner Romeo Curruchich Tumux. (Deputy Clerk CRN)

Jun 03, 2026

Minute Order

#15

Jun 04, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#16

Jun 08, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

Jun 08, 2026

Service by Mail