Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-00775
(HC) Cortes Pineda v. Warden
Active
Case Information
Filed: March 09, 2026
Assigned to:
Dena M. Coggins
Referred to:
Chi Soo Kim
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee
Active
Last Activity:
April 02, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
Mar 09, 2026
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Denis David Cortes Pineda. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
Main Document:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Mar 09, 2026
MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Denis David Cortes Pineda. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
Main Document:
Temporary Restraining Order
Mar 09, 2026
RECEIPT number 200017562 for $5.00 for Denis David Cortez Pineda. (Deputy Clerk LMS)
#3
Mar 10, 2026
PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 4/13/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 03/10/2026)
Main Document:
Prisoner New Case Documents for DJ Presider
#4
Mar 10, 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: 03/10/2026)
Main Document:
CONSENT/DECLINE
#5
Mar 10, 2026
MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/10/2026: 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 Two of the Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). 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 3/13/2026. 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 3/26/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count Two only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. 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: 03/10/2026)
Mar 10, 2026
SERVICE BY MAIL: Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 5, served on Denis David Cortes Pineda. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS)
Mar 10, 2026
SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Denis David Cortes Pineda. (Deputy Clerk OML)
Mar 10, 2026
Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings
Mar 10, 2026
Service by Mail
#6
Mar 11, 2026
Dismiss
Main Document:
Dismiss
#7
Mar 11, 2026
Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Main Document:
Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#8
Mar 12, 2026
MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/12/2026: In Respondents' 7 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). However, Respondents acknowledge the decisions from this court in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and acknowledge that they "do not have legal arguments to distinguish this case from prior orders issued by the Court, nor do [they] find material factual differences between this case and those identified by the Court." Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in those orders, Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 7 days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. This Order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal. 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: 03/12/2026)
Mar 12, 2026
SERVICE BY MAIL: Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 8, served on Denis David Cortes Pineda. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS)
Mar 12, 2026
Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings
Mar 12, 2026
Service by Mail
#9
Mar 18, 2026
Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings
Main Document:
Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings
Mar 18, 2026
Service by Mail
Mar 18, 2026
SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Order served on Denis David Cortes Pineda. (Deputy Clerk OML)
#10
Mar 19, 2026
STATUS REPORT by Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden. (Black, Lauren) (Entered: 03/19/2026)
Main Document:
STATUS
#11
Apr 02, 2026
Findings and Recommendations
Main Document:
Findings and Recommendations
Apr 02, 2026
Service by Mail
Apr 02, 2026
SERVICE BY MAIL: 11 Findings and Recommendations served on Denis David Cortes Pineda. (Deputy Clerk KLY)
Parties
(HC) Cortes Pineda
Party
Warden
Party