Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03288

#1

Apr 29, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes Cruz, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security by Ivan Escobar Romero. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number BCAEDC-13253606) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Kapur, Gita) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#2

Apr 29, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorney Gita B. Kapur : Civil Cover Sheet: Your document is not formatted properly, please flatten your PDF and re- file a properly formatted PDF. For information on how to flatten a pdf, please refer to our website under CM/ECF E-Filing > PDF Information > Page 7. If you need assistance, please contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-884-5444. (Deputy Clerk JPX) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#3

Apr 29, 2026

MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Ivan Escobar Romero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kapur, Gita) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#4

Apr 29, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Ivan Escobar Romero. (Kapur, Gita) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#5

Apr 29, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk PVY) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#6

Apr 29, 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: 04/29/2026)

#7

Apr 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/29/2026: (Text Only Entry). Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 3 motion for preliminary injunction, 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 preliminary injunction. 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 preliminary injunction by 5:00 PM on Friday, 5/1/2026. 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 Anderson v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01960-DAD-CKD, 2026 WL 809990 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2026); 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: 04/29/2026)

Apr 29, 2026

Minute Order

#9

May 01, 2026

Opposition to Motion