Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06220

#1

Aug 05, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Moises Becerra, Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin by Jose Manuel Feria Lopez. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13689565) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#2

Aug 05, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Manuel Feria Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 TROchecklist, # 6 Tro Proposed Order, # 7 Pi proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#3

Aug 05, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk LJB) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#4

Aug 05, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Moises Becerra,Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin (Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#5

Aug 05, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Pending the court'sdecision on the Petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner out of this District. 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"). The Petition and Motion appear to present issues recently resolved by the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, --- F. 4th ----, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. 2026). Given the substantial percolation of these issues, the court intends to rule directly 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 August 7, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez and justify denying the Petition, or indicate this matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a reply on or before August 10, 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

Aug 05, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Aug 07, 2026

RESPONSE to 5 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Moises Becerra, Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 I-213, # 2 NTA)(Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#7

Aug 07, 2026

EO: On August 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which alleges that he is a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection and was not apprehended upon arrival, and who is presently detained by immigration authorities. He asserts that he has been held without bond, even though he is not "a person subject to mandatory detention under the specific statutory provisions governing arriving aliens or certain criminal[s]." Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 12. Based on these allegations, Petitioner "seek[s] a bond redetermination hearing" consistent with the Ninth Circuit's recent decision Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, --- F. 4th ----, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026),In Rodriguez Vazquez, the Ninth Circuit explained that "unadmitted aliens present in the interior of the country" are subject to the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and not to those set forth in § 1225(b)(2)(A), which applies to "unadmitted aliens entering the United States at the border." 2026 WL 2196424, at *26. In light of that holding, this court ordered Respondents to show cause whether "there are any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquezand justify denying the Petition, or indicate this matter is not substantively distinguishable." Dkt. No. 5. The court thanks Respondents for their timely and candid response. Dkt. No. 6. In it, they "respectfully maintain [their] position" that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to Petitioner, but "acknowledge . . . that Rodriguez Vazquez . . . holds that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention." Id. at pg. 1. They concede that Petitioner is "entitled to seek a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration judge." Id. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED in part, to the extent Petitioner contends that he is entitled by statute to a bond hearing. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from continuing to detain Petitioner unless they demonstrate, within seven days of the date of this order, that Petitioner has received a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations. Respondents shall file a status report within ten days of the date of this order, confirming whether a bond hearing has been held and, if so, the outcome of that hearing. This order resolves all pending motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#8

Aug 07, 2026

Judgment AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

Aug 07, 2026

Minute Order