Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03032

#1

Apr 21, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd BLANCHE, Christopher CHESTNUT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, Markwayne MULLIN, Ernesto SANTACRUZ by David MENDOZA HERNANDEZ. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13215192) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Minas, Arthur) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#2

Apr 21, 2026

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by David MENDOZA HERNANDEZ. (Filing fee $ 300, receipt number ACAEDC-13215251) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing) (Minas, Arthur) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#3

Apr 22, 2026

VISITING JUDGE NEW CASE DOCUMENT ISSUED. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#4

Apr 22, 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: 04/22/2026)

#5

Apr 22, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT for Executive Office for Immigration Review,Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin,Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT for Ernesto Santacruz,Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Hemesath, Audrey) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#6

Apr 22, 2026

PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by District Judge Micah W. J. Smith on 4/22/2026 GRANTING Dkt. No. 2 Application for Pro Hac Vice. Added attorney J. Christopher Keen, PHV for Petitioner David Mendoza Hernandez. The Pro Hac Vice attorney is directed to request electronic filing access through PACER. (Deputy Clerk AB) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#7

Apr 22, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1 . Pending the court's decision on the petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting court's "express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction").Count I of thepetition -- which contends that Petitioner's detention is unlawful if he is not granted a bond hearing -- arguably should be stayed pending resolution of the appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.). Accord Rugama v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-1918-AC, 2026 WL 66901 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026). Specifically, Petitioner does not appear to allege that he ever had any encounter with immigration authorities after entering the United States or that he was released, whether on parole or otherwise, after any such encounter. The facts of Petitioner's case, therefore -- at least as currently alleged -- appear to be identical to those in Rodriguez. Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why Count I of the petition should not be stayed. Petitioner's response to this Order to Show Cause is due by no later than April 29, 2026. After receipt of Petitioner's response, the court will decide whether further briefing from Respondents is needed on Count I.Furthermore, it is not clear, on the current record, whether Petitioner is entitled to relief on Count II of the petition. In Count II, Petitioner contends that his detention, without pre-deprivation process, violated his constitutional due process rights. To establish a constitutionally protected liberty interest, Petitioner principally relies on an alleged prima faciedetermination issued for an I-918 U visa petition. ECF No.1, at pg. 10. But while the recipient of a U visa "receives lawful nonimmigrant status and work authorization for up to four years," De Sousa v. Dir. of U.S. Citizenship and Immig. Servs., 755 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1269 (N.D. Cal. 2024), it is not clear whether an applicant who receives a prima facie-- or bona fide determination -- on a U visa petition is fairly viewed as having been granted deferred action for some definite period of time.Accordingly, under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases -- which the court applies to this Section 2241 habeas petition, as authorized by Rule 1(b) -- the court orders the following as to Count II of the petition:1. By no later than April 29, 2026, Respondents SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to the petition. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. A Response can be made by filing (a) AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the petition. Any argument by Respondents that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE MADE in the ANSWER but must also address the merits of the claim asserted. Alternatively, a Response can be made by filing (b) A MOTION TO DISMISS the petition. In addition to including any other factual or legal argument Respondents choose to make, their response shall address the following questions: (a) whether Respondents dispute that Petitioner in fact received a prima facieor bona fide determination on a U visa petition; (b) whether Respondents dispute that Petitioner in fact received deferred action as a result of a prima facieor bona fide determination; and (c) whether any grant of deferred action carries with it the promise or implication that it will not be withdrawn for some period of time or without some form of pre-deprivation process. In answering question (c), Respondents should address any relevant statutes, regulations, agency guidance or other documents, and/or the language of the deferred action materials themselves, as relevant.2. By no later than April 29, 2026, Respondents SHALL FILE any and all transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the petition. See Rule 5(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The transcripts or other documents shall only be filed electronically and, to the extent practicable, provided in Optical Character Recognition ("OCR") format. Respondents shall not file a hard copy of the transcripts or other documents unless so ordered by this court.3. If Respondents file an answer to the petition, Petitioner MAY FILE a traverse within seven days of the service of Respondents' answer. If no traverse is filed, the petition and answer are deemed submitted at the expiration of the fourteen days.4. If Respondents file a motion to dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an opposition or statement of non-opposition within seven days of the date of service of Respondents' motion. Any reply to an opposition to the motion to dismiss SHALL be filed within seven days after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF. The motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired.5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of this order along with a copy of the petition, via email, on the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov.6. All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. These dates should be considered as firm by all parties. If any party requires additional time, that party should file a motion for amendment of the schedule before a deadline has passed and explain in detail why the party cannot comply with this schedule. Extensions of time will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order.IT IS SO ORDERED.(JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

Apr 22, 2026

SERVICE BY EMAIL: A PDF copy of Dkt. No. 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Dkt. No. 7 Entering Order was served by email on the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov on April 22, 2026. (Deputy Clerk AB)

Apr 22, 2026

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

Apr 22, 2026

Service by Mail

#10

Apr 29, 2026

Dismiss