Southern District of California • 3:25-cv-03287

#1

Nov 25, 2025

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Patrick Divver, Christopher J. Larose, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20523204.), filed by Elmer Garcia-Castro. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:25-cv-3287-AGS-VET. Judge Andrew G. Schopler and Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres are assigned to the case. (Portugal, Mario)(anh) (Entered: 11/25/2025)

#2

Nov 26, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#3

Nov 26, 2025

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings

#4

Nov 26, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#5

Dec 16, 2025

Return to Petition

#6

Jan 05, 2026

Traverse

#7

Jan 07, 2026

ORDER (AGS): In this case, respondents made an argument for custody that the government has since routinely abandoned. By January 8, 2026, respondents must update the Court on whether they will do likewise in this case or stand on their previous briefing. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 01/07/2026.(no document attached) (mxa) (Entered: 01/07/2026)

#8

Jan 07, 2026

Return to Petition

Jan 07, 2026

Order

#9

Jan 08, 2026

Order

#10

Jan 08, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#11

Jun 19, 2026

Supplemental Briefing

#12

Jun 22, 2026

ORDER (AGS): In this fully adjudicated, closed, and unappealed case, petitioner has filed another habeas petition styled as a "motion for further relief." (See ECF 11 .) But judgment has already issued in this case, and a second fully briefed habeas petition from the same petitioner was decided just last week. See ECF 26-cv-2787-AGS-VET. Regardless, the "new" habeas petition and/or motion, which appears to raise virtually identical issues to those already adjudicated by this Court, does not set out any authority for this Court to reconsider its January 8, 2026 Judgment. Generally, a "motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). But that time frame elapsed months ago. Rule 60 has several longer timelines to reopen a judgment. But they are much more limited, none seem to apply on their face, and petitioner has not explained how or under what section he seeks relief. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3) (requiring a showing of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," "newly discovered evidence," or "fraud"). Accordingly, his motion is denied. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 06/22/2026.(no document attached) (mxa) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

Jun 22, 2026

Order