Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04078

#1

May 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes L. Cruz, Markwayne Mullin by H.G.S.. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13380809) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration Authenticating Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A Friedman Atty Declaration, # 4 Exhibit B HGS Habeas Declaration, # 5 Exhibit C Dr Cheffers Expert Report, # 6 Exhibit D Highland Hospital Med Records, # 7 Exhibit E GSA Med Records, # 8 Exhibit F CCDF Med Records, # 9 Exhibit G Adventist Med Records, # 10 Exhibit H Form I851 Admin Removal Order, # 11 Exhibit I RFI Decision, # 12 Exhibit J IJ Decision, # 13 Exhibit K BIA Appeal Notice, # 14 Exhibit L 9 Cir Order, # 15 Exhibit M HGS Asylum Declaration, # 16 Exhibit N Kirkland Expert Declaration, # 17 Exhibit O Armed Forces Certificate, # 18 Exhibit P Honduras Crim Clearance, # 19 Exhibit Q Honduras Med Records, # 20 Exhibit R RAP Sheet, # 21 Exhibit S SF Crim Dispositions, # 22 Exhibit T Fed Record of Conviction, # 23 Exhibit U Defendant Sentencing Memo, # 24 Exhibit V Govt Sentencing Memo, # 25 Exhibit W Program Certificates)(McMahon, Sean) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#2

May 28, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk ED) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#3

May 28, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Orestes Cruz,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#4

Jun 01, 2026

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

#5

Jun 14, 2026

ANSWER (Response) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by All Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 6/18/2026 (KS). (Entered: 06/14/2026)

#6

Jun 26, 2026

REPLY by H.G.S. re 5 Response. (McMahon, Sean) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#7

Jul 23, 2026

Notice (Other)

#8

Jul 31, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#9

Aug 07, 2026

DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING of Bond Hearing filed by Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes Cruz, Markwayne Mullin. Date & Time 05/15/2025 08:00, Duration 00:15:09. File size [5.5 MB]. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#10

Aug 07, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#11

Aug 12, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations

#12

Aug 12, 2026

Judgment

#13

Sep 09, 2026

MOTION for RECONSIDERATION by H.G.S.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Authenticating Counsel Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A EOIR Printout, # 3 Exhibit B ACMS Docket Report)(McMahon, Sean) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#14

Sep 11, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/11/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 13 Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition by 12:00 PM on 9/15/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 9/16/2026. 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: 09/11/2026)

Sep 11, 2026

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

#16

Sep 16, 2026

MOTION to ENFORCE JUDGMENT by H.G.S. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sean Lai McMahon, # 2 Exhibit A Petr Bond Submission, # 3 Exhibit B DHS Bond Submission, # 4 Exhibit C Bond Hrg Transcript, # 5 Exhibit D IJ Bond Order)(McMahon, Sean) Modified on 9/18/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#17

Sep 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/18/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 16 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition by 12:00 PM on 9/22/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 9/23/2026. 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 MCF) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 18, 2026

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

#18

Sep 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#20

Sep 22, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#22

Oct 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 10/1/2026: In Petitioner's 13 Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this court's 11 Order adopting in part the assigned Magistrate Judge's 8 Findings and Recommendations, granting in part Petitioner's Habeas Petition, and ordering that Respondents provide Petitioner a bond hearing at which Respondents bear the burden of showing that Petitioner is a flight risk or a risk to community safety. On 8/7/2026, Respondents filed 10 Objections to the 8 Findings in Recommendations in which they emphasize that "every appellate court to address this [issue] holds that Zadvydas relief does not apply where the only impediment to removal is the noncitizen's own withholding-only or CAT appeal" and that "even lengthy ongoing review does not render detention indefinite." Petitioner did not respond to these objections, despite the 8 Findings and Recommendations stating that he was permitted to do so. Nevertheless, based on arguments he could have raised in response to Respondents' objections, Petitioner now requests in his 13 Motion that the court reconsider its 11 Order, and direct Respondents to immediately release him. But Petitioner does not identify any new facts or law that would warrant reconsideration. See L.R. 230(j)(3), (4) (stating that any motion for reconsideration must identify "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon [the] prior motion" and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion"). Further, while Petitioner contends that the court "did not consider that the bulk of authority in the Ninth Circuit, where this case arises, finds that immediate release under Zadvydas is available to petitioners in withholding-only proceedings," he does not address those other District Courts in the Ninth Circuit who are aligned with this court's interpretation of Zadvydas in relation to withholding-only proceedings. See, e.g., Paez v. Scott, No. 2:26-cv-01144-LK, 2026 WL 1396111, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2026) (finding that Zadvydas does not apply where impediment to removal is noncitizen's appeal of withholding determination because "[t]he stay resulting from [the petitioner's] ongoing appeal does not create a 'removable-but-unremovable limbo' because 'ongoing withholding-only proceedings alone are insufficient to demonstrate that removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable'") (citation modified); Lagunas v. Facility Administrator, Adelanto ICE Processing Ctr., No. 5:26-cv-00507, 2026 WL 2041445, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2026) (finding that same conclusion is "consistent with how the Ninth Circuit [] interpreted Zadvydas") (collecting cases). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for reconsideration of this court's 11 Order, and his 13 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#23

Oct 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 10/1/2026: In Petitioner's 16 Motion to Enforce the court's 12 Judgment, Petitioner argues that the bond hearing provided to him did not comply with the court's Order and did not satisfy due process because the Immigration Judge "failed to consider any of [Petitioner's] favorable evidence... demonstrating that he is not a flight risk or danger" and because Respondents "presented no evidence, much less 'clear and convincing' evidence, that [Petitioner] would fail to abide by release conditions." However, in the digital recording of that bond hearing, the Immigration Judge confirms that she has reviewed all evidence submitted by the parties, allows Petitioner's Counsel to present the same mitigating arguments regarding Petitioner's 2024 felony conviction for distribution of methamphetamine as are presented in Petitioner's 16 Motion, and concludes that the Government demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was a threat to community safety because of the "inherently dangerous" nature of his conviction, and because that conviction occurred very recently. Thus, the record does not reveal any "red flags" that would indicate that the Immigration Judge applied the wrong standard of proof. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024). To the extent Petitioner contends the evidence considered by the Immigration Judge was insufficient to meet the Government's burden, that is an argument to be raised to the Board of Immigration Appeals, not this court. Loba L.M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00611-JLT-SAB, 2026 WL 710307, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026) ("Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the immigration judge's bond determination rather than the constitutionality of the process by which that determination was reached... Complaints about the conclusion the IJ reached must be presented through the normal immigration appeal process."). Accordingly, Petitioner's 16 Motion to Enforce Judgment is DENIED. This case shall remain closed. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Reconsideration AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

Oct 01, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings