Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04104

#1

May 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Francisco Edgar Ramirez Bernal. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13385648) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Vejar, Erika) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#2

May 28, 2026

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Francisco Edgar Ramirez Bernal for attorney Nera Shefer to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 300, receipt number ACAEDC-13385741) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (Vejar, Erika) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

#3

May 29, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk ED) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#4

May 29, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Sirce Owen (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#5

Jun 03, 2026

Order on Application for Pro Hac Vice

#6

Jun 16, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#7

Jun 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/17/2026:Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 6 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 6 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, at *4 (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 if they have not already done so. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 6 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 6/18/2026. 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, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., 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, 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. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRN) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

Jun 17, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Jun 18, 2026

ANSWER (Opposition) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief, and RESPONSE to 7 Minute Order by All Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 6/25/2026 (KS). (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#9

Jun 22, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#10

Jun 22, 2026

Judgment