Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-01307

#1

Apr 03, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against all Respondents by Jose Refugio Escamilla Calzada. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#2

Apr 03, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Refugio Escamilla Calzada. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#3

Apr 03, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 5/7/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#4

Apr 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/3/2026: 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 respondent 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. In light of petitioner's pro se status, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve respondent 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. 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, 4/6/2026. 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 PAB) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#5

Apr 03, 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: 04/03/2026)

Apr 03, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Jose Refugio Escamilla Calzada. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

Apr 03, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Jose Refugio Escamilla Calzada. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Apr 03, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 03, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Apr 05, 2026

RESPONSE by Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem to 4 Minute Order,,,,,,,,, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit form i-213)(Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 04/05/2026)

#7

Apr 07, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/7/2026: On 4/3/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 4/5/2026, respondents filed an opposition (Doc. No. 6 ) to the pending motion. In that opposition, respondents argue that this case is 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) because petitioner in this case has not been previously released. (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) Though respondents are correct this is a distinguishing factor, the court's reasoning in Quichimbo-Jimenez in determining which detention authority applied to the petitioner in that case was not premised on the petitioner's prior release. See Quichimbo-Jimenez, 2026 WL 679378, at *1-2 (finding that the petitioner was subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) based on the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires 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). Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the previous orders in Quichimbo-Jimenez, 2026 WL 679378 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 under which petitioner's detention could be justified. Here, petitioner asserts that he entered the United States In August 2006 without inspection. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) On 2/21/2026, petitioner encountered and was detained by immigration authorities. (Id. at 4-5.) In their opposition, respondents argue only that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and identify no other statutory authority under which petitioner may be lawfully detained. (Doc. No. 6 at 3-4.) In their opposition, respondents also state that they do not oppose converting petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 2.) 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 is GRANTED. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Jose Refugio Escamilla Calzada, A-File No. 221-486-487, from respondents' custody on the same conditions, if any, that governed his release immediately prior to his detention on 2/21/2026; 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. The Clerk is directed to serve the California City Detention Facility with a copy of this Order. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (ICE-California City Detention Facility) (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

Apr 07, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Jose Refugio Escamilla Calzada. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Apr 07, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Apr 07, 2026

Service by Mail