Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03149

#1

Apr 24, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Golden State Annex Detention Facility by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#2

Apr 24, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#3

Apr 24, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#4

Apr 24, 2026

MOTION for APPOINTMENT of COUNSEL by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#5

Apr 27, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 6/1/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#6

Apr 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: 04/27/2026)

#7

Apr 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2026: (Text Only Entry).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 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 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. Further, the court has conducted a preliminary review of the pending motion and petition for writ of habeas corpus and observes that this case may involve core issues that the undersigned has previously addressed in this context. Accordingly, the parties are advised that if the court concludes that petitioner is entitled to the relief that is requested in the pending motion, then the court will also rule on the merits of the underlying petition. 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."); Dzhabrailov v. Decker, No. 20-cv-03118-PMH, 2020 WL 2731966 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2020) (considering the merits of the habeas petition and motion for preliminary injunction simultaneously).Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 4/29/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025); Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025); Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, et al., No. 2:26-cv-00832-DAD-DMC, 2026 WL 765027 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026); Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026); Cardenas v. Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026); J.P.C. v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-02108-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 788129 (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. The court will construe failure to distinguish the above cited cases as a concession that the cases are not substantively distinguishable. If respondents oppose this court ruling on the underlying petition, then respondents are DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in their opposition.(Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 27, 2026

Minute Order

Apr 27, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

#9

Apr 29, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

Apr 29, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Apr 30, 2026

Service by Mail