Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-00720

#1

Mar 05, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Correctional Center by Joel Klever Calderon-Coca. (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#2

Mar 05, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Joel Klever Calderon-Coca. (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#3

Mar 05, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#4

Mar 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/5/2026: 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 respondent 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. In light of petitioner's pro se status, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve respondent with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondent shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM Monday, 3/9/2026. In that opposition, respondent 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, respondent is DIRECTED to indicate in their opposition whether they oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they oppose the court resolving the merits of the underlying habeas petition. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#5

Mar 05, 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: 03/05/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Joel Klever Calderon-Coca. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

Mar 05, 2026

RECEIPT number 200017450 for $5.00 for filing fee from Joel Klever Calderon-Coca. (Deputy Clerk RRB)

Mar 05, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 05, 2026

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

#6

Mar 09, 2026

RESPONSE to 4 Minute Order, OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and ANSWER to 1 Petition by Warden, California City Correctional Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 3/12/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Joel Klever Calderon-Coca. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

Mar 09, 2026

Service by Mail

#7

Mar 11, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/11/2026: On 3/5/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). That same day, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish this case from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent decision in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), in which the court discussed the applicability of Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). On 3/9/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 6 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that "[t]here are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from this Court's prior Orders" but they note that on 3/6/2026, the Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed the district court's judgement in Maldonado Bautista to the extent that the judgement extends outside the Central District of California. (Doc. No. 6 at 1-2). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Id. at 4). The court incorporates herein its reasoning in Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026), in which the court explained why the petitioner would be entitled to a bond hearing based on respondent's concession that this case is not distinguishable from Rangel. Here, petitioner entered the United States more than two years ago and was detained by immigration authorities for the first time on January 8, 2026. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 4; [6-1] at 2.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Rangel and Quichimbo-Jimenez, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner a bond hearing within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order where respondents shall bear the burden of demonstrating that petitioner poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community; (2) Within three (3) days of the bond hearing, respondents shall file a status report in this case confirming that petitioner has been provided the bond hearing; and (3) petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order ordering respondents to immediately release him 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. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

Mar 11, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Mar 11, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 11, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Joel Klever Calderon-Coca. (Deputy Clerk JRM)

#8

Mar 12, 2026

Order

Mar 12, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 12, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 8 Order served on Joel Klever Calderon-Coca. (Deputy Clerk RRB)

#9

Mar 23, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Warden, California City Correctional Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#10

Apr 20, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

Apr 22, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Apr 22, 2026

Service by Mail

#12

Apr 27, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

Apr 27, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 27, 2026

Minute Order

#14

Apr 30, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#16

May 05, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

May 05, 2026

Service by Mail