Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02757

#1

Apr 13, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden by Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#2

Apr 13, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#3

Apr 13, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#4

Apr 13, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#5

Apr 14, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 5/18/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#6

Apr 14, 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: 04/14/2026)

Apr 14, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk JAW)

Apr 14, 2026

Service by Mail

#7

Apr 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/15/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 3 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order. Counsel for respondent has already entered a notice of appearance in this action, so respondent is directed to file a written opposition to the pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order by tomorrow, 4/16/2026, at 5:00 PM. In that opposition, respondent shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Furthermore, respondent is DIRECTED to indicate in its opposition whether respondent opposes converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction and whether respondent opposes 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: 04/15/2026)

Apr 15, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 15, 2026

Minute Order

Apr 15, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

#8

Apr 16, 2026

RESPONSE to 7 Minute Order by Warden. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1, # 2 Ex. 2, # 3 Ex. 3, # 4 Ex. 4)(Ahmed, Ihsan) Modified on 4/28/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 04/16/2026)

#9

Apr 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/2026: On 4/13/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 3 .) On 4/16/2026, respondents filed an opposition in which they have indicated that they do not oppose converting that motion into a motion for preliminary injunction and "concede they do not have materially distinguishable facts from" this court's decisions in Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) and Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). (Id. at 2.) Nonetheless, respondents argue that: (1) as an individual transferred from expedited removal proceedings to standard removal proceedings, petitioner is still subject to mandatory detention pursuant to § 1225(b); and (2) "[a]s an alien physically present in the United States without having been admitted, Petitioner is treated for constitutional purposes as if stopped at the border." (Id. at 2, 5-7.) It is undisputed that petitioner entered the United States in 2024, was briefly detained by immigration officials, released into this country with ISAP requirements, and then re-detained without notice or an explanation when attending an ISAP appointment on or about 3/18/2026. First, respondents concede that DHS previously released petitioner from immigration custody (Id. at 6), and the evidence that respondents proffer in support of their opposition shows that petitioner was re-detained pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236, which is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (Doc. No. 8-4 at 1). There is no indication that petitioner was re-detained pursuant to § 1226(c). Accordingly, the court infers that petitioner was re-detained pursuant to § 1226(a). "As other courts have noted, '[w]here the release decision was made by a DHS officer, not an immigration judge, the Government's practice has been to require a showing of changed circumstances before re-arrest.'" Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) (citation omitted). No such showing has been made here. As to respondents' second argument, which amounts to the invocation of the "entry fiction" doctrine, the court rejects this position because "the government did not treat petitioner as if he had been stopped at the border when it detained and released him after his entry." Luis Alberto R.C. v. Murray, No. 1:25-cv-01618-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3648143, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025). Accordingly, petitioner's detention violates due process.For these reasons, the court CONVERTS the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTS it as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Jesus Hurtado Huaman, A-File No. 249-067-620, from respondents' custody; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge where respondents have the burden of establishing that petitioner is either a flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the Golden State Annex Detention Facility with a copy of this order. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ), is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (cc: Golden State Annex) (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Minute Order served on Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Apr 17, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 17, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

Apr 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/20/2026: Respondents are GRANTED 30 (thirty) days within which to file an answer or an indication that Respondents stand on the record as is. If an answer is filed, Petitioner has 30 (thirty) days from service of the answer to file a traverse. Petitioner A No. 249 067 620 (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

Apr 20, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 20, 2026

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

Apr 20, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Minute Order served on Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk LMK)

Apr 27, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Detainee Not in Custody, Unable to Forward: 7 Minute Order, 9 Minute Order sent to Jesus Hurtado Huaman. Notice of Change of Address due by 6/4/2026. (Deputy Clerk OML)

#11

May 03, 2026

RESPONSE by Warden to 10 Minute Order,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 05/03/2026)

#12

May 04, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Ihsan U. Ahmed for Warden (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

May 04, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Not deliverable as addressed: 10 Minute Order sent to Jesus Hurtado Huaman. Notice of Change of Address due by 6/11/2026. (Deputy Clerk JRM)

#13

May 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/6/2026: Petitioner's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. Petitioner requests appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, Petitioner's 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. Petitioner A No. 249 067 620. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

May 06, 2026

Service by Mail

May 06, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 13 Minute Order served on Jesus Hurtado Huaman. (Deputy Clerk LMK)

May 06, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

May 28, 2026

Service by Mail

May 28, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#16

Jun 22, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations

#17

Jun 22, 2026

Judgment

Jun 22, 2026

Service by Mail