Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03958

#1

May 23, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by JUAN RAMON LOYA-CEPEDA. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13366464) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Aldana, Francisco) (Entered: 05/23/2026)

#2

May 23, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by JUAN RAMON LOYA-CEPEDA. (Aldana, Francisco) (Entered: 05/23/2026)

#3

May 26, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk ED) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#4

May 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Nisreen Fakhouri Assaf for Todd Blanche,Nisreen Fakhouri Assaf for Markwayne Mullin,Nisreen Fakhouri Assaf for M. Wofford (Assaf, Nisreen) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

#5

May 26, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 2 . The issues raised in the Petition and Motion 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 May 28, 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 Bautistaclass, 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, Galvanv. 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 May 29, 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. And given the court's ongoing consideration of the Petition and Motion, 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: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

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

#7

Jun 03, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Jun 03, 2026

Judgment AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case