Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-01001

#1

Mar 20, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Correctional Center by Silvio Rafael Padilla-Arauz. (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

#2

Mar 20, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Silvio Rafael Padilla-Arauz. (Deputy Clerk VLK) (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 VLK) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

#4

Mar 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/20/2026: 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., 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 3/25/2026. 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 4/7/2026. 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. 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: 03/20/2026)

Mar 20, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 4, served on Silvio Rafael Padilla-Arauz. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS)

Mar 20, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Silvio Rafael Padilla-Arauz. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

Mar 20, 2026

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

Mar 20, 2026

Service by Mail

#5

Mar 23, 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: 03/23/2026)

#6

Mar 24, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#7

Apr 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on April 9, 2026: In Respondent's 6 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondent argues that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) due to his January 29, 2026, arrest for grand theft. (See Doc. No. 6 at 1-2.) Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), noncitizens who are charged with, arrested for, or convicted of acts "which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, [or] shoplifting" are subject to mandatory detention during the pendency of their removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(e)(ii). The Supreme Court has found that mandatory detention under this section is constitutionally permissible. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003). Petitioner does not address his detention under § 1226(c) in his 1 Petition or 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner did not file a Reply to Respondent's Opposition, and his time to do so has expired. (See Doc. No. 4.) Accordingly, the court finds that Petitioner is likely subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and therefore he has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims that his immigration detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and/or his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process. Further, while Petitioner seeks an order preventing his transfer during the pendency of his habeas proceedings, such an order is unnecessary as the court retains jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim even if he is transferred to a different district. Vaskayan v. Janecka, No. 5:25-cv-01475-MRA-AS, 2025 WL 2014208, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) (collecting cases). Accordingly, Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 04/09/2026)

Apr 09, 2026

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

Apr 09, 2026

Service by Mail

#8

Apr 13, 2026

06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response

Apr 13, 2026

Service by Mail