Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04906

#1

Jun 25, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Current or Acting United States Attorney General, Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Warden of the California City Detention Facility, Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security by Duanes Lebsielk. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#2

Jun 25, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Duanes Lago Lebsielk. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#3

Jun 25, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Duanes Lago Lebsielk. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#4

Jun 26, 2026

ORDER AUTHORIZING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS as to Duanes Lago Lebsielk signed by Visiting Judge Micah WJ Smith on 6/26/2026. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#5

Jun 26, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#6

Jun 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Elisa M. Rodriguez for Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Current or Acting United States Attorney General,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Warden of the California City Detention Facility (Rodriguez, Elisa) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#7

Jun 26, 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 . 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 30, 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 2, 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 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: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

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

Jun 26, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 7 Entering Order, served on Duanes Lago Lebsielk. (Deputy Clerk AB)

Jun 26, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Immigration New Case Documents, 4 Order Authorizing IFP Status, Order on Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis served on Duanes Lago Lebsielk. (Deputy Clerk MR)

Jun 26, 2026

Service by Mail

#9

Jul 01, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#10

Jul 01, 2026

Judgment

Jul 01, 2026

Service by Mail

#11

Jul 04, 2026

Notice of Compliance