Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-05646

#1

Jul 20, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, Central Valley Annex by Vo Van Hai. (Deputy Clerk AKP) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Jul 20, 2026

RECEIPT number 100008905 for $5.00 for Vo Van Hai. (Deputy Clerk AKP)

#2

Jul 22, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk AKP) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#3

Jul 22, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Elisa M. Rodriguez for Warden, Central Valley Annex (Rodriguez, Elisa) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Jul 22, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 2 Immigration New Case Documents served on Vo Van Hai. (Deputy Clerk AKP)

Jul 22, 2026

Service by Mail

#4

Jul 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/29/2026: Petitioner (A No. 025 125 214) has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging ICE detention. In light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Within 14 (fourteen) days from the date of this order, the appointing authority for the Eastern District of California shall identify counsel and send counsel's contact information to Lisa Kennison, Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, via email at lkennison@caed.uscourts.gov, who shall update the docket to reflect counsel's appointment. If counsel is not a member of the Eastern District of California Criminal Justice Act ("CJA") Panel, the court hereby authorizes them to serve as Pro Hac Vice CJA counsel for Petitioner for the duration of the proceedings in this court pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(1). If counsel is not admitted to practice before the Eastern District of California, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3005 and 3006A and this District's CJA Plan, General Order 671, § XV.C.1.g as applied here, the court hereby authorizes said counsel's Pro Hac Vice admission to practice before this court for the duration of the proceedings, nunc pro tunc to the date the appointing authority first contacted counsel about this appointment. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Federal Defender, Attention: Habeas Appointment. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of the 1 Petition upon the Federal Defender. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

Jul 29, 2026

Service by Mail

Jul 29, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Vo Van Hai. (Deputy Clerk JRM)

Jul 29, 2026

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

#6

Aug 03, 2026

NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS to Central Valley Annex, 254 Taylor Avenue, McFarland, CA 93250 by Vo Van Hai. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#7

Aug 14, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/14/2026: The court has been notified of counsel's contact information, pursuant to the Order at ECF No. 4. Attorney Benjamin Forrest Hall is hereby appointed as counsel for Petitioner. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to reflect Attorney Benjamin Forrest Hall, 801 1st Street, Suite B, Benicia, CA 94510, 415-776-1633, bhall@benhlaw.com, as counsel for Petitioner in this matter. (Text Only Entry) (cc: Federal Defender Habeas Appointment) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

Aug 14, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys

#8

Aug 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/16/2026: Petitioner is GRANTED 14 (fourteen) days within which to file an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and / or Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner A No. 025 125 214. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 08/16/2026)

Aug 16, 2026

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

#9

Aug 31, 2026

FIRST AMENDED PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS by Vo Van Hai.(Hall, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#10

Aug 31, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Vo Van Hai. (Hall, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#12

Aug 31, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Vo Van Hai. (Deputy Clerk RRB) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#11

Sep 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/1/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 10 motion for temporary restraining order, 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 10 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 10 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 9/2/2026. 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 Zurita Navarro v. Warden, Cent. Valley Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-05661-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 2294963 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026); 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. Respondents are further directed to include in their opposition the detention authority or authorities identified by or relied upon by the detaining agency at the time of detention as the basis for detention and verifying evidence of the same, which may consist of a declaration from a person with knowledge or documentation of any steps the detaining agency had taken to comply with the procedural requirements of that detention authority or authorities prior to judicial intervention. If respondents' counsel is not aware of the detention authority or authorities identified by the agency at the time of detention, they are directed to so state in their opposition. Respondents are also directed to clearly identify in their opposition the source of any other proposed detention authority, including, for instance, a recent review of the detention's factual circumstances by respondents' counsel. Where a detention authority is relied upon in any opposition filed without specifying its source, the court may presume, based on the court's discussions with respondents' counsel at hearings in prior similar cases, that it is based solely on counsel's recent review of the factual circumstances surrounding the petitioner's detention. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Sep 01, 2026

Minute Order

#13

Sep 02, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS by Warden, Central Valley Annex. (Rodriguez, Elisa) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

#14

Sep 11, 2026

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

#15

Sep 11, 2026

Judgment