Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-05900

#1

Jul 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Blanche, Marcos Charles, Christopher Chestnut, CoreCivic, Inc., Orestes Cruz, Markwayne Mullin by Israel Chavez Caceres. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13644602) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B-Z, AA-BB, OO, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Wang, Chien-Yu) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#2

Jul 28, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#3

Jul 28, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Marcos Charles,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Orestes Cruz,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#4

Jul 30, 2026

Preliminary Injunction AND Temporary Restraining Order

#5

Jul 31, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 7/31/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 4 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and are entitled to a custody redetermination hearing at which their eligibility for release on bond must be considered. See Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez v. Drew Bostock, et al., No. 25-6842 at 10 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Further, this court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 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."); see also 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.");A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 4 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by 12:00 PM on 8/4/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Vazquez, Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, and D.L.C. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 8/5/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition albeit as to Count One only. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

Jul 31, 2026

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

#6

Aug 03, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents Todd Blanche, Marcos Charles, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes Cruz, Markwayne Mullin to 5 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,,,,, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 4 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/03/2026)

#7

Aug 05, 2026

Traverse

#8

Aug 06, 2026

Notice of Request to Seal Document(s)

#9

Aug 07, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/7/2026: In Respondents' 6 Opposition to Petitioner's 4 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Respondents distinguish Petitioner's claim from those cited in the court's 5 Order by emphasizing that Petitioner was provided a bond hearing on 5/11/2026 pursuant to a court order in a habeas case previously brought by Petitioner in the District of Maryland. Respondents attach to their 6 Opposition a copy of the [6-1] Immigration Judge's order denying Petitioner's request for bond. However, in the District of Maryland's [1-1] order granting Petitioner's previous habeas petition and requiring that Respondents provide Petitioner with a bond hearing, the court found that "Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)" and granted Petitioner a bond hearing based on his statutory entitlement under that section. The court did not resolve Petitioner's due process claim. Here, on the other hand, the court explicitly informed the parties in its 5 Order that it was contemplating ruling on Petitioner's first claim for relief for violation of his Fifth Amendment right to Due Process, and directed the parties to address previous cases in which this court found that a noncitizen previously released by immigration authorities is constitutionally entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before they may be re-detained and is entitled to immediate release when such a pre-deprivation bond hearing is not provided. Respondents fail to address Petitioner's due process claim in their 6 Opposition or otherwise distinguish it from the cases cited in the court's 5 Order. Accordingly, the court FINDS that Petitioner was constitutionally entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing, and the violation of that right was not remedied by his previous bond hearing. Thus, Petitioner's 4 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED as follows: (1) Petitioner Israel Chavez Caceres (A-095-053-603) shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from Respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his detention on 2/5/2026. Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; (2) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered; and (3) This Order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Order on the California City Detention Facility. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE-California City) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

Aug 07, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings