Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03408

#1

May 04, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Field Office Director, San Francisco ICE Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Tae D. Johnson, Warden, California City Correctional Center by Jose Angel Rubio Arzola. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#2

May 04, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Jose Angel Rubio Arzola. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#3

May 04, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Angel Rubio Arzola. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#4

May 05, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#5

May 05, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 2, and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 3 . Upon review of the Petition, the court believes this case would benefit from the appointment of counsel. Petitioner's 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel,is therefore GRANTED. Within seven days from the date of this order, the appointing authority for the Eastern District of California shall identify counsel and send counsel's contact information to Smith_Orders@hid.uscourts.gov, which shall update the docket to reflect counsel's appointment. If counsel is not a member of the Eastern District of California Criminal Justice Act Panel, within seven days of this Order the Federal Defender shall file a motion to appoint counsel as CJA counsel pro hac vice. Within fourteen days of appointment of counsel, Petitioner may supplement the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of the petition on the Federal Defender.After counsel is appointed, the court will set a schedule for briefing on the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. And given the court's ongoing consideration of Petitioner's Petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondents shall not transfer or otherwise take Petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. 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").IT IS SO ORDERED.(JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

May 05, 2026

Service by Mail

May 05, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

May 05, 2026

SERVICE BY EMAIL: A PDF copy of Dkt. No. 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Dkt. No. 5 Entering Order was served by email on the Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California at zzCAEml_Appointments_Habeas@fd.org on May 5, 2026. (Deputy Clerk AB)

May 05, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 5 Entering Order, was served on Jose Angel Rubio Arzola at the address of record on May 5, 2026. (Deputy Clerk AB)

May 05, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Immigration New Case Documents served on Jose Angel Rubio Arzola. (Deputy Clerk MR)

May 05, 2026

RECEIPT number 100008054 for $5.00 for Jose Angel Rubio Arzola from Jose Angel Rubio Arzola. (Deputy Clerk MR)

#6

May 06, 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: 05/06/2026)

#7

May 13, 2026

EO: The Court has been notified of appointed counsel's contact information pursuant to Dkt. No. 5 Entering Order. Attorney Vanessa Molina is hereby APPOINTED as CJA counsel for Petitioner Jose Angel Rubio Arzola. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to reflect said attorney at 1530 Lancaster Point Way San Diego, CA 92154, 619-790-4300, vanessa@vanessamolinalaw.com respectively, as counsel for Petitioner in this matter, nunc pro tunc to 5/12/2026. (cc: Federal Defender Habeas Appointment) IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

May 13, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys

#8

May 25, 2026

Continue

#9

May 31, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#10

Jun 01, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's 9 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The issues raised in the Amended Petition appear to mirror those previously addressed by other district judges in many prior cases. See Henry A.V.L. v. Warden of the Cent. Valley Annex Detention Facility, No. 1:26-cv-3354, 2026 WL 1391273 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2026); Galvan v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1766, 2026 WL 183724 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:25-cv-1766, at Dkt. No. 14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2026); Avalos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-1199, 2026 WL 654448 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 825717 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2026). Given the substantial percolation of these issues, the court intends to rule directly on the Petition. See 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."). On or before June 4, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to the following two questions: 1. Do Respondents dispute that Petitioner appears to be a member of the class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025)? 2. Regardless of Petitioner's membership in the Maldonado Bautista class, are there are any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from prior orders, such as Henry A.V.L. v. Warden, Galvan v. Noem, and Avalos v. Chestnut, which resolved similar petitions on statutory grounds under the INA? Respondents should indicate whether any factual or legal distinctions exist that would justify denying the Petition, or indicate this matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a reply on or before June 5, 2026. This matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

Jun 01, 2026

Minute Order

#11

Jun 02, 2026

RESPONSE to 10 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Field Office Director, San Francisco ICE Field Office, Tae D. Johnson, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Warden, California City Correctional Center. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/02/2026)

#12

Jun 03, 2026

Order

#13

Jun 03, 2026

Judgment AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#14

Jun 10, 2026

Notice (Other)

#15

Jun 10, 2026

EO: In an order filed on June 3, 2026, this court "ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED" Respondents "from continuing to detain Petitioner unless they demonstrate[d], within seven days of the date of this order, that Petitioner has received a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations." Dkt. No. 12, at pg. 4. Petitioner has now filed a 14 Notice of Order Noncompliance, in which he represents that as of "the end of the business day Pacific Time, June 10, 2026," Respondents have not timely provided him with the bond hearing the court ordered or otherwise released him. Dkt. No. 14, at pg. 2. On or before June 11, 2026, Respondents are therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to the following two issues: 1. Do Respondents dispute as a matter of fact that in spite of the court's order enjoining and restraining them from continuing to detain Petitioner unless he was provided with a bond hearing within seven days, Petitioner was neither given a bond hearing nor released? 2. If Respondents concede that Petitioner was not timely provided with the court-ordered bond hearing, they must show cause as to why the appropriate remedy for such a violation of a court order should not be Petitioner's immediate release, as anticipated by that order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

Jun 10, 2026

Minute Order

#16

Jun 11, 2026

Notice (Other)

#17

Jun 11, 2026

RESPONSE to 15 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Field Office Director, San Francisco ICE Field Office, Tae D. Johnson, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Warden, California City Correctional Center. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/11/2026)

#18

Jun 11, 2026

EXHIBIT IJ Bond Order by Field Office Director, San Francisco ICE Field Office, Tae D. Johnson, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Warden, California City Correctional Center re 17 Response to Order to Show Cause. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/11/2026)

#19

Jun 12, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's 16 Withdrawal of Notice of Order Noncompliance and Respondents' 17 Response to Order to Show Cause and 18 IJ Bond Order. The court thanks both parties for their prompt and candid submissions. Based on the parties' agreement that Petitioner was in fact timely provided with a bond hearing in compliance with the court's order, the court will take no further action on its 15 Order to Show Cause. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Minute Order