Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02197

#1

Mar 20, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Director of San Francisco Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Warden Mesa Verde Detention Center by Sabino Murrieta Sandoval. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13067251) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Juarez, Nancy) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

#2

Mar 20, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Sabino Murrieta Sandoval. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Juarez, Nancy) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

#3

Mar 20, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

#4

Mar 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/20/2026: 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 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. Further, no later than Monday, 3/23/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) 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 Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. 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 on Tuesday, 3/24/2026. 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 Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026), or Cardenas v. Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (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. 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 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 PAB) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

#5

Mar 20, 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: 03/20/2026)

Mar 20, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Mar 21, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#7

Mar 21, 2026

RESPONSE by Director of San Francisco Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 4 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 03/21/2026)

#8

Mar 22, 2026

REPLY by Sabino Murrieta Sandoval re 7 Response. (Juarez, Nancy) (Entered: 03/22/2026)

#9

Mar 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/23/2026: On 3/20/2026, petitioner 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 decisions in Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026), or Cardenas v. Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court. Here, petitioner alleges he entered the United States in 2006 without inspection. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Petitioner was detained by immigration authorities on 1/29/2026. (Id.) Petitioner provided his alien number in his petition (Id.) and respondents have not disputed these allegations (Doc. No. 7 ). On 3/21/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that there are no substantive factual or legal differences between this case and the situations addressed in the court's prior cited orders. (Doc. No. 7 at 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.) Still, respondents oppose petitioner's motion based on the reasons set forth in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026). (Id.) The court recently explained why it finds the reasoning of the majority in Buenrostro-Mendez to be unpersuasive. See Iskandar Wasef v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 392389 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026). The court incorporates that reasoning here. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Quichimbo-Jimenez and Cardenas 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 immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody; (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 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 PAB) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

Mar 23, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO