Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02230

#1

Mar 23, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Tonya M Andrews, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by Raul Carranza Ambriz. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13074769) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Crabtree, Kevin) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#2

Mar 23, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Raul Carranza Ambriz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Proposed Order)(Crabtree, Kevin) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#3

Mar 23, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorney Kevin Michael Crabtree re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Under Local Rule 200, every complaint, amended complaint, or other document initiating a civil action shall be accompanied by a completed civil cover sheet, on a form available from the Clerk and on the Court's website. Please file your civil cover sheet. If you need assistance, please contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-884-5444. (Deputy Clerk EF) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#4

Mar 23, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 4/27/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#5

Mar 23, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Raul Carranza Ambriz. (Crabtree, Kevin) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#6

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)

#7

Mar 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/23/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 3/26/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 3/30/2026. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 12:00 PM on 3/24/2026. 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: 03/23/2026)

#8

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)

Mar 23, 2026

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

#9

Mar 25, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Injunctive Relief and Answer to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 3/26/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#10

Mar 30, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#11

Apr 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on April 30, 2026: In Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that he is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, and that under that statute, "noncitizens should be removed within 90 days" (the "Removal Period") and that "[o]nce the 90 days have passed and removal has not been effectuated, ostensibly, the detained noncitizen should be released from custody." (See Doc. No. 2 at 13.) However, § 1231(a)(6) specifically grants the Government discretion to continue noncitizens' detention beyond the Removal Period where, as relevant here, the noncitizen has been ordered removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182. Petitioner further argues that he is improperly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because the Government did not abide by its own regulations in continuing Petitioner's detention beyond the removal period; specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(g)'s provision that noncitizens subject to final orders of removal are to be given a custody review 90 days after the removal order becomes final, and 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(h)'s provision that the Government must "provide written notice to the detainee approximately 30 days in advance of the pending records review" and the noncitizen "may be assisted by a person of his or her choice" at the record review. (See Doc. No. 2 at 9-10.) Petitioner argues Respondents failed to abide by those regulations because (1) Petitioner was provided a post-order custody review 106 days following finalization of his order of removal, not 90; and (2) neither Petitioner nor his Counsel were given prior notice of the hearing. (Id. at 10.) In their Opposition, Respondents argue that any alleged error is harmless, as Petitioner was provided another post-order custody review on March 26, 2026, and was provided notice of that review on February 23, 2026. (See Doc. Nos. 9 at 3; 9-4.) Indeed, Petitioner's Counsel appeared telephonically (albeit earlier than expected) for that March 26, 2026 hearing, and Petitioner was able to provide documentation supporting his claim for release. (See Doc. No. 10 at 8-9.) Petitioner was informed at that hearing that a decision as to his continued custody would be made within 2-3 weeks. (Id. at 9.) Thus, Petitioner has now received the process he is statutorily and constitutionally entitled to, notwithstanding the slight delay. See Getu Tamrat v. Hernandez, No. 26-cv-01169-MLP, 2026 WL 1113388, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2026) (finding that petitioner was not entitled to release despite delayed post-order custody review because "even if a custody review determination had been made [timely], as contemplated by both the regulations and the notice of custody review provided to Petitioner, it is unlikely the outcome of the review would have been different given the ultimate conclusion that Petitioner presented both a danger to the community and a flight risk if released.") Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his present custody is in violation of his statutory or constitutional rights, and his 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner bringing a renewed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order should his detention exceed the period deemed presumptively reasonable by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#12

May 13, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#13

May 13, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#14

May 14, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/14/2026: Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 13 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 5/18/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 5/19/2026. 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: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

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

#16

May 18, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion