Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-01140

#1

Mar 27, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against all Respondents by Ramon Zuniga Pineda. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#2

Mar 27, 2026

EX PARTE APPLICATION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Ramon Zuniga Pineda. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#3

Mar 27, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/30/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#4

Mar 27, 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: 03/27/2026)

#5

Mar 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/27/2026: 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 courts 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. In light of petitioner's pro se status, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve respondents with a copy of the petition and motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. 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 Monday, 3/30/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall specify whether petitioner has been previously detained by immigration authorities and 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: 03/27/2026)

Mar 27, 2026

RECEIPT number 200018004 for $5.00 Habeas Filing Fee. (Deputy Clerk AMW)

Mar 27, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Minute Order served on Ramon Zuniga Pineda. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Mar 27, 2026

Minute Order

Mar 27, 2026

Service by Mail

#6

Mar 30, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS and RESPONSE to 5 Minute Order by All Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 4/3/2026 (KS). (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#7

Apr 07, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/7/2026: On 3/27/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order wherein petitioner alleges that he entered the United States in March 2008, and on 1/13/2026 he was arrested by immigration officials without any warning, paperwork, or legitimate reason. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) Also on 3/27/2026, the court set a briefing schedule on the motion and directed respondents to 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). (Doc. No. 5.) On 3/30/2026, respondents filed a motion to dismiss and an opposition to the pending motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 6 .) Therein, respondents argue that the cited cases are distinguishable because here, petitioner has failed to name his immediate custodian as a respondent. (Id. at 2-3.) While it is true that the docket in this case does not reflect that petitioner's immediate custodian is a respondent, the petition itself does specify that it is brought against petitioner's immediate custodian, Warden, California City Correctional Center. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) As such, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Quichimbo-Jimenez and Cardenas, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner, A-Number 246-060-779, from respondents' custody; and (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 where respondent will have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. 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 Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to add the Warden, California City Correctional Center as a respondent in this action as identified in the pending petition. The Clerk of the Court is further DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the California City Detention Facility. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. (cc: ICE-California City) (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

Apr 07, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Apr 07, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 07, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Ramon Zuniga Pineda. (Deputy Clerk PAB)