Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03270

#1

Apr 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Jovanni Paola Garcia-Aburto. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13245570) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Consent Form)(Jimenez-Ortega, Walter) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

#2

Apr 28, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

#3

Apr 28, 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: 04/28/2026)

#4

May 04, 2026

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

#5

May 08, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Elisa M. Rodriguez for Todd Blanche,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Christopher Chestnut,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Executive Office for Immigration Review,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Markwayne Mullin,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Ernesto Santacruz,Elisa M. Rodriguez for U.S. Department of Homeland Security, attorney Shelley D. Weger, GOVT terminated (Rodriguez, Elisa) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#6

May 11, 2026

Dismiss

#7

May 11, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

May 22, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#9

May 22, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#10

May 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/22/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 9 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 9 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). The court observes that counsel for respondents has already entered Notices of Appearance and filed a 6 response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 9 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 5/26/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall indicate whether this case is 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. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); 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), or otherwise indicate that respondents oppose the 9 motion for the reasons set forth in their 6 response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 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. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE - California City) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

May 22, 2026

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

#11

May 25, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#12

May 26, 2026

OPPOSITION to 9 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by All Respondents. (Rodriguez, Elisa) Modified on 5/29/2026 (KS). (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#13

May 27, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#14

May 27, 2026

Judgment