Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02291

#1

Mar 24, 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 Diego Yair Perez Roblerdo. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Juarez, Nancy) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#2

Mar 24, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Diego Yair Perez Roblerdo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Juarez, Nancy) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#3

Mar 24, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/27/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk SR) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#4

Mar 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/24/2026: (Text Only Entry).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 tomorrow, 3/25/2026, 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 Thursday, 3/26/2026. 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), 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 CGH) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

Mar 24, 2026

RECEIPT number ACAEDC-13082812 for $5.00 for Diego Yair Perez Roblerdo from Nancy Juarez. (Deputy Clerk EF)

Mar 24, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Mar 25, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Diego Yair Perez Roblero. (Juarez, Nancy) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#6

Mar 25, 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: 03/25/2026)

#7

Mar 25, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Mar 27, 2026

REPLY by Diego Yair Perez Roblero re 7 Opposition to Motion. (Juarez, Nancy) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#9

Mar 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/30/2026: On 3/24/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 3/25/2026, respondents filed an opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to the pending motion. In that opposition, respondents concede that this case is not substantively distinguishable from Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026). Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the undersigned's previous orders in Quichimbo-Jimenez, 2026 WL 679378, where the undersigned found that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act required a bond hearing for noncitizens who have been detained by immigration authorities and who have: (1) entered the United States without inspection; (2) were not apprehended on arrival; and (3) are not otherwise subject to mandatory detention, and Cardenas v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026), where the court found that the petitioner's immediate release was the appropriate remedy in order to preserve the status quo ante litem and because the respondents had failed to identify any statutory detention framework to justify petitioner's detention. Here, petitioner asserts that he entered the United States in February 2019 without inspection. (Doc. No. 1 at 15.) On 1/9/2026, petitioner encountered and was detained by immigration authorities. (Id. at 18.) On 3/17/2026, petitioner received a bond determination hearing where the immigration judge held that the court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the bond hearing, which supports the conclusion that respondents have held petitioner pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225 instead of the applicable 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Id. at 21.) Respondents state in their opposition that they do not oppose converting the pending motion into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7 at 3.) Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Quichimbo-Jimenez and Cardenas, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions, if any, that governed his release immediately prior to his detention on 1/9/2026; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner written notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator using the burden applicable to bond hearings 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. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

Mar 30, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Apr 09, 2026

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