Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03489

#1

May 06, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit) (Marin, Jose) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#2

May 06, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Marin, Jose) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#3

May 06, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Marin, Jose) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#4

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)

#5

May 06, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk CLA) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#6

May 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/6/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. This court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See M.M. v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-00813-DC-AC, 2026 WL 604200 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2026); Nasar v. Warden, No. 2:26-cv-00433-DC-AC, 2026 WL 731160 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 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."); see also 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."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 5/8/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 5/11/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

May 06, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

May 06, 2026

PAYMENT for habeas petition filing fee in the amount of $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13288003. (Marin, Jose)

#7

May 07, 2026

NOTICE of RELATED CASE(S) 1:25-cv-00955-SKO, 1:26-cv-03489-DC-AC by All Respondents. (Fresno). (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 5/13/2026 (KS). (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#8

May 07, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION to DISMISS 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 5/13/2026 (KS). (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#9

May 11, 2026

OPPOSITION to 8 Motion to Dismiss and REPLY in Support of 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Marin, Jose) Modified on 5/15/2026 (KS). (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#10

May 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/27/2026: In Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that immigration judges improperly denied Petitioner's requests for custody redetermination on 11/14/2025 and 4/20/2026. Specifically, Petitioner argues that an immigration judge improperly determined that Petitioner was a flight risk at his 11/14/2025 custody redetermination hearing, where he proceeded without counsel, and that an immigration judge improperly denied Petitioner's second custody redetermination request on 4/20/2026 on jurisdictional grounds, or in the alternative because Petitioner did not show changed circumstances warranted his release. In their 8 Opposition to Petitioner's motion, Respondents note that Petitioner appealed the initial denial of his custody redetermination request to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and that appeal remains pending such that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the instant habeas petition. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We agree with the government, however, that the district court should have dismissed [petitioner's] claims, without prejudice, for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.") In his Reply, Petitioner argues that the court should excuse administrative exhaustion, as in Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, No. 10-cv-02211-DMG, 2011 WL 5966657 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011). However, as Petitioner concedes, the petitioner in Franco-Gonzalez had been denied a custody redetermination hearing altogether, whereas here Petitioner has had two separate requests for custody redetermination denied, and an appeal as to the first request remains pending with the Board of Immigration Appeal. Finally, Petitioner argues that the recent deterioration of his mental health requires his immediate release as he is not receiving proper medical care in immigration detention. However, a habeas petition is an improper vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) ("Habeas proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the 'legality or duration' of confinement. A civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of challenging conditions of confinement.") (citations omitted). Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his continued detention violates his constitutional or statutory rights, and his 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

May 27, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

May 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/28/2026. The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the filings in this action. If further briefing and evidence is needed, respondents may file an answer within fourteen days from the date of this order. Petitioner may file a traverse within seven days of the date an answer is filed or due. If no further briefing is filed, the matter will be deemed submitted. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

Minute Order

#12

Jun 22, 2026

MOTION to AMEND Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

#13

Jun 22, 2026

FIRST AMENDED PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

#14

Jun 22, 2026

RENEWED MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Deputy Clerk JAW) Modified on 6/29/2026 (KS). (Entered: 06/23/2026)

#15

Jun 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/26/2026: In Petitioner's 14 Renewed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that his 19-month detention pending removal proceedings has grown unconstitutionally prolonged. In its 10 Order denying Petitioner's previous 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, the court found that Petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies through his pending Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals challenging his first bond denial before he may file a Habeas Petition in this court. In his 14 Renewed Motion, Petitioner contends that his initial 2 Motion failed to adequately address that his continued detention is violative of his substantive right to due process as it has grown too prolonged to serve the Government's interests of preventing flight or danger to the community while executing his removal order. However, as Petitioner acknowledges, he is actively appealing the denial of his asylum application to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Thus, the delay in Petitioner's removal proceedings are attributable to his own pursuit of relief from removal, not the Government's failure to execute a final order of removal. See Hassan Shafaq v. Warden, California City Correctional Facility, No. 1:26-cv-00299-JLT-SKO, 2026 WL 1785249, at *8 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2026) (denying habeas petition of noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) with pending appeal of his order of removal, stating "Petitioner is awaiting Ninth Circuit review of his final order of removal... As such, he 'foreseeably remains capable of being removed--even if it has not yet finally been determined that he should be removed--and so the government retains an interest in assuring his presence at removal.") (quoting Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008)). Thus, Petitioner's continued detention, albeit prolonged, does not present the same constitutional concerns relating to indefinite detention as those addressed in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Accordingly, Petitioner's 14 Renewed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#17

Jul 20, 2026

NOTICE of NON-OPPOSITION to Motion to Leave and MOTION for Ruling and Briefing Schedule by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Deputy Clerk LMS) Modified on 7/24/2026 (KS). (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#16

Jul 21, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/21/2026. After the court issued a briefing order on the petition, petitioner filed a motion to amend. Respondents have not opposed. The motion to amend (ECF No. 12 ) is GRANTED, and the prior briefing order (ECF No. 11 ) is VACATED. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) ("leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay") (citation omitted). Respondents are directed to filing a response to the amended petition within 7 days from the date of this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If respondents dispute any factual representations in the operative petition, the response shall include any and all documents necessary to support their view of the facts. Petitioner's reply, if any, is due within 7 days of being served a copy of the respondents' response. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Jul 21, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Amend the Complaint

#18

Jul 24, 2026

MOTION to WITHDRAW as ATTORNEY by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Marin, Jose) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

#19

Jul 28, 2026

RESPONSE to the 13 First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents . (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 7/29/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#20

Jul 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/28/2026. In light of ECF No. 16, granting petitioner's motion to amend and setting a briefing schedule on the amended petition, petitioner's motion for ruling and briefing schedule 17 is denied as moot. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

Jul 28, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#21

Jul 30, 2026

DECLARATION of Jose Zamudio Marin in support of 18 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. (Marin, Jose) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

#22

Aug 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/03/2026. The court has reviewed counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Petitioner and counsel's declaration in support of the motion. ECF Nos. 18, 21 . Good cause appearing, the motion 18 is GRANTED. All future communication should be directed to petitioner, Maksim Hakobkokhvyan (A# 221-346-805) who is currently detained at Central Valley Annex, 254 Taylor Avenue, McFarland, CA 93250. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket accordingly. Pursuant to Local Rule 135(b), respondent shall serve petitioner conventionally with the 19 response to the first amended petition that was previously ordered. Petitioner's deadline to reply is hereby extended and any reply shall be submitted within 7 days of petitioner being served with a copy of the respondent's response. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

#23

Aug 03, 2026

CERTIFICATE of SERVICE re 19 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 8/6/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/03/2026)

#24

Aug 03, 2026

DECLARATION re Conditions of Confinement and MOTION for EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Deputy Clerk LMS) Modified on 8/11/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#25

Aug 03, 2026

REPLY BRIEF filed by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan in SUPPORT of 13 First Amended Petition. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

Aug 03, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

#26

Aug 10, 2026

TRAVERSE/REPLY and MOTION for IMMEDIATE RULING by Maksim Hakobkokhvyan. (Deputy Clerk RRB) Modified on 8/18/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/13/2026)