Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03619

#1

May 11, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Detention Facility; and MOTION for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF by Junping Liang. (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#2

May 11, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Junping Liang. (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#3

May 11, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Junping Liang. (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#4

May 12, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#5

May 12, 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: 05/12/2026)

#6

May 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/12/2026: On 5/11/2026, petitioner filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he requests expedited review. In light of petitioner's pro se status, the court will construe this request as a motion for temporary restraining order. Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 1 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 1 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 1 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 5/14/2026. 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 PAB) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

May 12, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 6 Minute Order served on Junping Liang. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

May 12, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Immigration New Case Documents served on Junping Liang. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

May 12, 2026

Minute Order

May 12, 2026

Service by Mail

#7

May 14, 2026

RESPONSE to Order, OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief, and Motion to Dismiss Petition by Warden, California City Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 5/15/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#8

May 15, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#9

May 15, 2026

Judgment

May 15, 2026

Service by Mail

May 15, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Judgment and 8 Order served on Junping Liang. (Deputy Clerk VLC)

May 20, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as not deliverable as addressed: 4 IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS sent to Junping Liang. (Deputy Clerk LMS)