Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06105

#1

Aug 03, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Detention Facility by Marco Tulio Munoz Cornelas. [$5.00 filing fee received on 8/3/2026. Receipt to be docketed on 8/4/2026.] (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#2

Aug 03, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Marco Tulio Munoz Cornelas. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#3

Aug 03, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Marco Tulio Munoz Cornelas. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#4

Aug 04, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#5

Aug 04, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Warden, California City Detention Facility (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#6

Aug 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 8/4/2026: The Court is in receipt of Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ). On review the issues raised in the Petition appear to mirror those previously addressed by the Court in many prior cases. See Morillo v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01533-DJC-AC; see also E.L.D.M. v Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01906-DJC-JDP. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before August 7, 2026, as to why the Court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus by filing a return as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In such a return, Respondents should identify any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Court's prior orders listed above and justify denying the petition, or indicate this matter is not substantively distinguishable. This 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 ORDER] (Deputy Clerk GJM) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 04, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 6 Minute Order served on Marco Tulio Munoz Cornelas. (Deputy Clerk GJM)

Aug 04, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Immigration New Case Documents served on Marco Tulio Munoz Cornelas. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

Aug 04, 2026

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

Aug 04, 2026

Service by Mail

Aug 04, 2026

RECEIPT number 200020335 for $5.00 filing fee for Marco Tulio Munoz Cornelas from Cal City Immigration Processing Center. (Deputy Clerk KML)

#7

Aug 06, 2026

NOTICE of RELATED CASE(S) 1:26-cv-03645-EJD, 1:26-cv-06105-DJC-JDP by Warden, California City Detention Facility. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#8

Aug 07, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS Duplicative and Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Warden, California City Detention Facility. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 8/10/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#9

Aug 12, 2026

RELATED CASE MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Edward J Davila on 08/12/2026: Pursuant to Local Rule 123, the Court finds that this action (1:26-cv-06105-DJC-JDP) is related to Case No. 1:26-cv-03645-EJD because both cases involve overlapping parties, claims, events, and questions of fact and law. Accordingly, assignment of the actions to the same district judge will promote convenience, efficiency, and economy for the Court and parties. Thus, the Court ORDERS that Case No 1:26-cv-06105-DJC-JDP is REASSIGNED to U.S District Judge Edward J Davila. All future filings in 1:26-cv-06105-DJC-JDP shall use the following Case Number: 1:26-cv-06105-EJD. (cc DJC, JDP) (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Deputy Clerk JJD) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

Aug 12, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Related Cases Minute served on Marco Tulio Munoz Cornelas. (Deputy Clerk JJD)

Aug 12, 2026

Service by Mail

Aug 12, 2026

PARTY UPDATE (Text Only Entry): The spelling of Petitioner's last name has been corrected from Munoz Cornelas to Munoz Canelas. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

Aug 12, 2026

Minute Order AND Order Reassigning Case

#10

Aug 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Edward J Davila on 8/13/2026: The Court finds this case would benefit from the appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Within 7 calendar 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 via email to julia_thomas@CAND.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 the appointee to serve as 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 court, 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.Petitioner shall file a response to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss by 8/26/2026. Respondents may file a reply by 9/2/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Thomas, Julia) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

Aug 13, 2026

Service by Mail

Aug 13, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Minute Order served on Petitioner. (Thomas, Julia)

Aug 13, 2026

Minute Order

#11

Aug 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Edward J Davila on 8/19/2026: Pursuant to the Order appointing counsel dated 8/13/2026 (ECF No. 10 ), the appointing authority for the Eastern District of California has confirmed that attorney Kristina L. McKibben seeks appointment nunc pro tunc to 8/19/2026 and notified the Court of Counsel's contact information. Attorney Kristina L. McKibben is hereby appointed pro hac vice as CJA counsel for petitioner as permitted in General Order 582, Section X (C). The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to reflect Attorney Kristina L. McKibben, Community Justice Alliance, 1809 S. Street, Ste. 101-291, Sacramento, CA 95811, 916-562-4129, admin@cjaca.org, as counsel for petitioner on an ad hoc basis in this matter. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (cc: Federal Defender Habeas Appointment) (Thomas, Julia) (Entered: 08/19/2026)

Aug 19, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys

#12

Aug 26, 2026

***DISREGARDED PER 13 CLERK'S NOTICE*** OPPOSITION by Marco Tulio Munoz Canelas to 8 Motion to Dismiss. (McKibben, Kristina) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#13

Aug 26, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION re 12 Opposition to Motion: Please disregard entry as was filed in error. (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#14

Aug 26, 2026

OPPOSITION by Marco Tulio Munoz Canelas to 8 Motion to Dismiss. (McKibben, Kristina) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#15

Aug 26, 2026

MOTION for 21-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME to September 21, 2026 by Marco Tulio Munoz Canelas. (McKibben, Kristina) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#16

Aug 26, 2026

PROPOSED ORDER re PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED PETITION AS OF RIGHT re 15 Motion for Extension of Time. (McKibben, Kristina) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

#17

Aug 31, 2026

FIRST AMENDED PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS by Marco Tulio Munoz Canelas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kristina McKibben and supporting exhibits, # 2 Exhibit)(McKibben, Kristina) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#18

Sep 01, 2026

REPLY by Warden, California City Detention Facility re 14 Opposition to Motion, 17 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#19

Sep 03, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Marco Tulio Munoz Canelas. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kristina McKibben, # 2 Exhibit Supporting Exhibits, # 3 Proposed Order for TRO)(McKibben, Kristina) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#20

Sep 03, 2026

NOTICE of ERRATA by Marco Tulio Munoz Canelas re 19 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Copy of Amended Order sent to chambers)(McKibben, Kristina) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#21

Sep 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Edward J Davila on 9/3/2026 DENYING 8 Motion to Dismiss, FINDING AS MOOT 15 Motion for Extension of Time, and DENYING 19 Motion for TRO: The Court is in receipt of Petitioner's application for emergency relief ("TRO") (Dkt. No. 19 ), First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 17 ), and Respondents' Motion to Dismiss ("MTD") (Dkt. No. 8 ). For the reasons that follow, the MTD is DENIED and the Court rejects Respondents' request to strike the First Amended Petition. See Dkt. No. 8 at 3. Further, the TRO is DENIED as the relief it seeks appears foreclosed by Rauda v. Jennings, 55 F.4th 773 (9th Cir. 2022). As to the MTD, Respondents argue that the petition should be dismissed as successive and an "abuse of the writ." Dkt. No. 8 at 2-3. The Court rejects both arguments. The statutory bar against successive habeas petitions found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) applies only to habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and not habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, thus, disposing of Respondents' first argument. Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the common law doctrine of abuse of the writ may serve as a bar to successive habeas petitions filed pursuant to § 2241. Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011). "Under the abuse of the writ doctrine, a successive petition that raises identical grounds for relief as a prior petition must be dismissed unless the petitioner can show (1) cause for bringing a successive petition and that prejudice would result or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from failure to entertain that claim." Id. Here, there would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice if the Court were to dismiss the instant petition as Petitioner's first petition was dismissed without prejudice or a merits ruling. The Court further declines to strike the First Amended Petition filed at Dkt. No. 17. Assuming, without deciding, that the Court's leave was required under FRCP 15(a)(2) to file the amended petition, the Ninth Circuit has a liberal policy favoring amendments, and thus leave to amend should be freely granted. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the Court does not find that amendment would be futile as Petitioner filed the original petition pro se without the benefit of counsel. Accordingly, though filed without seeking leave to amend, the Court will recognize the Amended Petition at Dkt. No. 17 as the operative pleading. The motion seeking an extension to filed the Amended Petition (Dkt. No. 15 ) is, therefore, resolved as moot. Finally, the Court DENIES the TRO. Petitioner's TRO seeks the following relief: (1) "Respondents to say where [Petitioner] is"; (2) "that [Petitioner] not be put on a plane while his Petition is pending"; (3) that Petitioner "be brought back to the district in which he filed, so that the Court retains the practical ability to grant whatever relief it decides he is due"; and (4) "[i]f Respondents have already removed [Petitioner],... that they be directed to bring him back." Dkt. No. 19 at 15. The Court finds that it lacks the ability to grant such relief under Rauda v. Jennings. There, the Ninth Circuit found that a district Court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order preventing the Government from removing the petitioner while his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings and habeas petition remained pending where a final order of removal was in place. 55 F.4th at 780. Similarly here, Petitioner's order of removal is final (see Dkt. No. 17 at 17), he has moved to reopen his immigration case and stay removal (id. at 3), and now effectively seeks an order staying that removal while those motions are pending and the Court adjudicates his petition. The Court reads Rauda as squarely foreclosing such relief and, therefore, cannot order that the Government refrain from putting Petitioner on a plane while the petition is pending or order that he be brough back to the United States if he has been removed. In sum, the MTD and TRO are both DENIED and the Court will recognize the First Amended Petition at Dkt. No. 17 as the operative pleading. Respondents are directed to promptly inform counsel for Petitioner of Petitioner's whereabouts. By 9/10/2026, Respondents are ordered to show cause, in writing why relief on the First Amended Petition should not be granted. Petitioner may file a reply by 9/15/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Thomas, Julia) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

Sep 03, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Dismiss

#22

Sep 10, 2026

NOTICE OF MOOTNESS by Warden, California City Detention Facility re 21 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/10/2026)