Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02996

#1

Apr 20, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Teng Vang by Teng Vang. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13208355) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus and TRO, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 4 TRO Checklist, # 5 Ex Parte Application for a TRO)(Cooper, Holly) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

#2

Apr 21, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Teng Vang. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus and TRO, # 3 TRO Checklist)(Cooper, Holly) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#3

Apr 21, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 5/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#4

Apr 21, 2026

FIRST AMENDED PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS by Teng Vang.(Cooper, Holly) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#5

Apr 21, 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: 04/21/2026)

#6

Apr 21, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/21/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See, e.g., Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner's habeas petition] as law and justice require."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 4/27/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 4/29/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. 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 5:00 PM on 4/21/2026. 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: 04/21/2026)

#7

Apr 21, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Camilo Rodriguez, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin, attorney Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT terminated (Rodriguez, Camilo) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#8

Apr 21, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Teng Vang re 6 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,. Attorney Cooper, Holly added.. Attorney Cooper, Holly added as counsel of record. (Cooper, Holly) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

Apr 21, 2026

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

#9

Apr 24, 2026

ANSWER (Response) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by All Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Rodriguez, Camilo) Modified on 5/5/2026 (KS). (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#10

Apr 28, 2026

REPLY to 9 Opposition by Teng Vang. (Cooper, Holly) Modified on 5/5/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 04/28/2026)

#11

May 01, 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: 05/01/2026)

#12

May 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by THE Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/6/2026: In Respondents' 9 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner was lawfully re-detained because on 4/6/2026, the Embassy of Laos issued Petitioner a [9-1] Travel Document, thereby enabling Respondents to effectuate Petitioner's Final Order of Removal. Respondents further allege that Petitioner was provided a [9-6] Notice of Revocation of his Order of Supervision ("OSUP") which states that his release was being revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) because ICE obtained Petitioner's travel document, and that his removal would take place by no later than 5/13/2026. Respondents have not provided any evidence showing Petitioner was provided an informal interview upon his re-detention, but they argue that an informal interview is not necessary because Petitioner's OSUP was revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 241.4(l)(2)(iii), not 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), which was the basis for revocation in the cases cited in Petitioner's 2 Motion. Respondents cite no authorities supporting the contention that OSUP revocation under § 241.2(l)(2)(iii) does not require an informal interview, and numerous courts within and outside this district have rejected this argument. Constantinovici v. Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1163 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) ("District courts have consistently rejected this argument and held that § 241.4(l)(1)'s procedural requirements [including a prompt informal interview] apply equally to revocation of a noncitizen's release pursuant to § 241.4(l)(2).") (collecting cases). Thus, Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that he was re-detained in violation of his regulatory and constitutional protections. Respondents additionally argue that the cases cited in Petitioner's 2 Motion as mandating his immediate release are distinguishable because in those cases, no travel documents had been obtained prior to the petitioner's re-detention, whereas here, Respondents' receipt of Petitioner's travel document precipitated revocation of his OSUP. Petitioner cites one case in his 10 Reply to support his argument that release is the proper remedy even where Respondents obtained a travel document, but notably in that case, the travel document was obtained after the petitioner's OSUP was revoked. Phetsadakone v. Scott, No. 2:25-cv-01678-JNW, 2025 WL 2579569, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 5, 2025). This court has previously found that when a noncitizen is re-detained for non-pretextual reasons without statutorily required process, the proper remedy is that statutorily required process, not immediate release. See, e.g., Calvillo v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00569-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 253627, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2026) (ordering bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) where noncitizen was re-detained without bond hearing but government articulated non-pretextual changed circumstance warranting detention). The Government's receipt of a travel document constitutes a non-pretextual reason to believe that revocation of Petitioner's OSUP is "appropriate to enforce a removal order" as required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2)(iii), therefore the proper remedy is requiring Respondents to provide an informal interview at which Petitioner may present evidence and argue against revocation. Finally, Petitioner contends that he should not remain detained pending removal because he has filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings before the immigration court, in which he presents viable bases for relief from removal. However, § 241.4(b)(1) explicitly states that a noncitizen "who has filed a motion to reopen immigration proceedings for consideration of relief from removal... shall remain subject to the provisions of this section unless the motion to reopen is granted." Accordingly, Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED IN PART as follows: (1) Respondents shall, within ten days, provide Petitioner Teng Vang (A-023-768-547) with an informal interview pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(1) at which Petitioner must be provided the opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation of his OSUP; and (2) If Petitioner is not provided an informal interview within ten days, he shall be released immediately from Respondents' custody. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

May 06, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#13

May 11, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#14

May 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/13/2026: The Court has reviewed Petitioner's 13 motion for a temporary restraining order. Respondents shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by 12:00 PM on 5/18/2026. Petitioner may file a reply by 12:00 PM on 5/20/2026. 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 RAA) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

May 13, 2026

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

#15

May 18, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents Sergio Albarran, Todd Blanche, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin to 13 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Rodriguez, Camilo) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

#16

May 20, 2026

REPLY by Teng Vang re 14 Minute Order,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings, 15 Opposition, 13 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Cooper, Holly) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

#17

May 22, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#18

May 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/26/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 17 Motion for Emergency Relief From Removing Petitioner Out of District. The court DENIES Petitioner's 17 motion because there is no basis for the relief sought; this court retains jurisdiction over Petitioner's habeas petition notwithstanding his transfer to a detention facility outside of this district. See Garcia-Ayala v. Andrews, No. 2:25-cv-02070-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 2578167, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025) (explaining that "the Court does not lose jurisdiction over [Petitioner's] pending habeas petition if Petitioner is transferred to another jurisdiction"). (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#19

May 27, 2026

Notice (Other)

#20

May 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/29/2026: In Petitioner's 16 Reply in Support of his second 13 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner indicates that on 5/19/2026, after Petitioner filed his 13 Motion and Respondents filed their 15 Opposition, Petitioner was granted a stay of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitioner attaches the stay order to his 16 Reply. Accordingly, Petitioner contends that the stated purpose for revocation of Petitioner's Order of Supervision, to enforce Petitioner's removal order, is no longer applicable as "there is no order [of] removal that ICE can enforce...." Petitioner further emphasizes that it is exceedingly unlikely that Petitioner's appeal will be completed before the 7/5/2026 expiration of his proffered travel documents. Because Petitioner's stay was granted after Respondents filed their 15 Opposition, Respondents have not had the opportunity to address the effect of the stay of removal on Petitioner's immigration detention. Accordingly, Respondents are hereby DIRECTED to file a Supplemental Response to Petitioner's 13 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 6/2/2026 in which they shall address the basis for Petitioner's continued detention, if any, in light of the BIA's Stay Order. Petitioner may file a Response to Respondents' Supplemental Response by 6/4/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

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

#21

Jun 01, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE to 13 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by All Respondents. (Rodriguez, Camilo) Modified on 6/3/2026 (KS). (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#22

Jun 04, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#23

Jun 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued on 6/17/2026 by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: In Petitioner's 13 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that the informal interview he was provided did not comply with this court's 12 Order because he was not provided adequate notice of the informal interview and was not able to present evidence supporting his defenses to re-detention or have counsel present for the interview. Petitioner also was not shown the travel document allegedly precipitating revocation of his release on an Order of Supervision and therefore could not adequately argue against its validity. In his 16 Reply, Petitioner emphasizes that since filing his 13 Motion, the Board of Immigration Appeals granted his motion for stay of removal such that he may not now be removed and the purported basis for his re-detention is now moot. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2)(iii) (permitting revocation of release where it "is appropriate to enforce a removal order or to commence removal proceedings against the alien"). Respondents argue in their 15 Opposition that Petitioner was not entitled to notice or counsel in an informal interview under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4. Respondents emphasize in their 21 Supplemental Response that the stay of removal does not alter their authority to detain Petitioner pending removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The court finds the court's Order in Saeteun v. Albarran, No. 26-cv-04743-CRB, 2026 WL 1454304 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2026) persuasive. In Saeteun, the Government revoked the Petitioner's OSUP under 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) purportedly to exercise a recently obtained travel document. Saeteun, 2026 WL 1454304 at *5. The Government provided Petitioner an informal interview pursuant to that regulation, but did not provide him notice of that interview, did not permit his counsel to be present, and did not show him the travel document purportedly precipitating his detention. Id. The court therefore found that the Petitioner was "likely to prevail on his argument that Respondents violated their own regulations as to his re-detention, and his related argument that such violations also violate the Due Process Clause." Id. Here, as in Saeteun, Petitioner's informal interview did not provide him a constitutionally sufficient opportunity to argue against his re-detention. Further, the purported basis for his re-detention has been mooted because Respondents cannot execute his order of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his informal interview violated this court's 12 Order and the court finds that the proper remedy for this violation is Petitioner's immediate release. Thus, Petitioner's 13 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner Teng Vang (A-023-768-547) from immigration detention; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections including at least an informal interview pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) for which Petitioner shall be provided at least seven days' notice, shall be permitted to have counsel present, and shall be shown all documentation supporting revocation of his release. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve this Order on the Golden State Annex Detention Center. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE-Golden State Annex) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#24

Jun 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 6/17/2026: On 6/17/2026, the court granted petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order, ordered petitioner's immediate release, and referred the matter to me for further proceedings. (ECF No. 23 .) Respondents have already filed an answer to the amended petition. (ECF No. 9 .) If respondents wish to file a supplemental answer, they may do so by 6/24/2026. If respondents do not file a supplemental answer by that time, the matter will deemed submitted. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

Jun 17, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

Jun 17, 2026

Minute Order