Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04862

#1

Jun 24, 2026

(2241) PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Caleb Vitello, Warden, California City Correction Center by Pedro Miguel Toro Marquez. (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#2

Jun 24, 2026

MOTION for Immediate Release or, in the Alternative, for a Bond Hearing by Pedro Miguel Toro Marquez. (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

RECEIPT number 100008593 for $5.00 fbo Pedro Miguel Toro Marquez from Pedro Miguel Toro Marquez. (Deputy Clerk AML)

#3

Jun 25, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#4

Jun 25, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Nisreen Fakhouri Assaf for Alejandro Mayorkas,Nisreen Fakhouri Assaf for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),Nisreen Fakhouri Assaf for Caleb Vitello,Nisreen Fakhouri Assaf for Warden, California City Correction Center (Assaf, Nisreen) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#5

Jun 25, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dkt. No. 1, and his motion for immediate release or, in the alternative, for a bond hearing, Dkt. No. 2 . The court intends to rule 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 June 29, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED to answer in writing the following questions: 1. Is Petitioner subject to a final order of removal? If so, after being ordered removed, was Petitioner released under an order of supervision or otherwise released from custody by immigration authorities? If Petitioner was released, are there any factual or legal bases to distinguish this case from cases like Afshin A.N. v. Chestnut, No. CV 1:26-cv-03813-MWJS, 2026 WL 1726781 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)? 2. In Respondents' view, is Petitioner subject to mandatory detention pursuant to any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act other than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)? If the answer is yes, what is the relevant detention authority and why do Respondents think that it applies to Petitioner? 3. Other than the circumstances covered by the first question, was Petitioner otherwise ever detained and released by immigration authorities? If the answer is yes, what were the circumstances of that release, and are there any factual or legal bases to distinguish this case from the many prior cases in which other petitioners in a variety of circumstances have been granted immediate release? See, e.g., Maxo Ben G. v. Warden of Mesa Verde Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-03776-MWJS, 2026 WL 1457554 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2026); Kallebe C.L. v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-03651-MWJS, 2026 WL 1374754 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2026); A.J.S.M.P. v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-03163-MWJS, 2026 WL 1190220 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2026); Sergio D.L.S. v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-02821-MWJS, 2026 WL 1049713 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026). 4. If Petitioner was not previously detained and released by immigration authorities, are there any factual or legal bases to distinguish this case from the many prior cases in which other petitioners have been granted bond hearings? See, e.g., Juana G.R.P. v. Warden of the Cal. City Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-04406-MWJS, 2026 WL 1712375 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2026); Bertoldo B.F. v. Warden, Cal. City Immigr. Processing Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-03634-MWJS, 2026 WL 1638322 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2026)? 5. Was Petitioner previously granted a bond hearing before an immigration judge? If the answer is yes, when was that hearing held, what was the outcome, and what was the reasoning underlying the immigration judge's decision? Petitioner may file a reply on or before July 1, 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. Because the court plans to rule promptly on the petition, and the petition and motion seek the same relief, the motion, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED without prejudice. And given the court's ongoing consideration of the petition, 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: 06/25/2026)

Jun 25, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 5 Entering Order, was served on Pedro Miguel Toro Marquez. (Deputy Clerk AB)

Jun 25, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Immigration New Case Documents served on Pedro Miguel Toro Marquez. (Deputy Clerk AML)

Jun 25, 2026

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

Jun 25, 2026

Service by Mail

Jul 01, 2026

Minute Order

Jul 01, 2026

Service by Mail

#9

Jul 06, 2026

Extension of Time

Jul 06, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time

Jul 06, 2026

Service by Mail

#12

Jul 08, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#13

Jul 08, 2026

Judgment

Jul 08, 2026

Service by Mail