Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06649

#1

Aug 20, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Facility Administrator, Mesa Verde Detention Center by Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#2

Aug 20, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#3

Aug 20, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#4

Aug 20, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Facility Administrator, Mesa Verde Detention Center (Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#5

Aug 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/20/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 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). See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, 2026 WL 2196424, at *3 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Further, this court has previously addressed claims where noncitizens were detained by immigration authorities to facilitate removal pursuant to a removal order. See, e.g., Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025); Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025); El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). 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 Temporary Restraining Order. 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 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 8/24/2026. In their response, Respondents shall indicate whether Petitioner is in active removal proceedings and, if so, what the status of those proceedings are, and shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the applicable aforementioned cases. Petitioner may file a Reply by 9/7/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition. 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 MCF) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

Aug 20, 2026

Service by Mail

Aug 20, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Minute Order served on Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Deputy Clerk MCF)

Aug 20, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Immigration New Case Documents served on Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

Aug 20, 2026

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

Aug 21, 2026

RE-SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Immigration New Case Documents, 5 Minute Order, served on Kevin David Tovar Suan with A No. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

Aug 21, 2026

Service by Mail

#6

Aug 24, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Facility Administrator, Mesa Verde Detention Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6) (Disparte, Quinn) Modified on 8/28/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#7

Aug 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/27/2026: In Respondents' 6 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents argue the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied because the "ERO... has the duty and authority to execute [Petitioner's] removal order [that became administratively on February 11, 2026], which it cannot accomplish without first taking Petitioner into custody," that Petitioner's "detention is significantly likely to occur in [the] foreseeable future," and that Petitioner's detention of less than 90 days is presumptively reasonable such that it has not become unconstitutionally prolonged. However, even if the court were to assume these assertions are true, they do not curtail Respondents' obligation to comply with the requirements set forth under 8 U.S.C. §§ 241.4(l), 241.13(i) regarding re-detention of a noncitizen to effectuate removal pursuant to a final order of removal beyond the 90-day removal window. See also Constantinovici v. Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1163 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) ("[8 U.S.C.] § 241.4(l)(1)'s procedural requirements apply equally to revocation of a noncitizen's release pursuant to § 241.4(l)(2)."). Indeed, Respondents provided no argument or evidence that they abided by these requirements, and failed to address this court's 5 order directing them to substantively distinguish this case from this court's earlier rulings in Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Hoac, Vuong, and El-Ghazaly, Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner Kevin David Tovar Suan, A# 241-504-043, from Respondents' custody; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, strict compliance with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 241.4, 241.13. This case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Mesa Verde Detention Facility. (Text Only Entry)(cc: ICE - Mesa Verde) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

Aug 27, 2026

Service by Mail

Aug 27, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order on Motion for TRO served on Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Deputy Clerk MCF)

Aug 27, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Sep 02, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Released: 3 Immigration New Case Documents sent to Kevin David Tovar Suan. Notice of Change of Address due by 10/13/2026. (Deputy Clerk MCF)

#8

Sep 03, 2026

NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Connie Y. Chan on behalf of Kevin David Tovar Suan. Attorney Chan, Connie Y. added. (Chan, Connie) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#9

Sep 03, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chan, Connie) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#10

Sep 03, 2026

AMENDED MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Chan, Connie) Modified on 9/8/2026 (KS). (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#11

Sep 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/4/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 9 Motion and 10 Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. On 8/27/2026, this court 7 Ordered Petitioner released because Respondents failed to provide any argument or evidence that they had complied with the requirements set forth under 8 U.S.C. §§ 241.4(l), 241.13(i) regarding re-detention of noncitizens to effectuate removal pursuant to a final order of removal beyond the 90-day removal window. Respondents were enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, strict compliance with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 241.4, 241.13. In the 10 Amended Motion, Petitioner asserts that he was re-detained at an ICE appointment seven days after this court ordered his immediate release and that Respondents did not comply with those statutory requirements. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 10 Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 9/8/2026. Respondents shall: (1) distinguish this case from this court's decisions in Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), and (2) if Respondents contend they complied with this court's 7 Order, they shall also provide evidence showing that they complied with 8 U.S.C. §§ 241.4, 241.13, in re-detaining Petitioner. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 9/9/2026. This matter is not set for a hearing, though the court may schedule one if it determines it is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

Sep 04, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

Sep 04, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Attempted-Not known, unable to forward, Detainee not in custody, released: 5 Minute Order sent to Kevin David Tovar Suan. Notice of Change of Address due by 10/13/2026. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

#12

Sep 08, 2026

OPPOSITION by Facility Administrator, Mesa Verde Detention Center to 10 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 I-205, # 2 Informal Interview, # 3 Notice of Imminent Removal, # 4 OSUP Revocation, # 5 Passport--Travel Document)(Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

Sep 08, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Released: 3 Immigration New Case Documents, 5 Minute Order, sent to Kevin David Tovar Suan. Notice of Change of Address due by 10/16/2026. (Deputy Clerk VAS)

#13

Sep 09, 2026

REPLY to 12 Opposition by Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Chan, Connie) Modified on 9/14/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#14

Sep 11, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/11/2026: In Petitioner's 10 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that Respondents violated this court's 7 Order by re-detaining Petitioner without complying with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4 and 241.13. In their 12 Opposition, Respondents contend that they complied with §§ 241.4 and 241.13 in re-detaining Petitioner pursuant to the court's Order. Respondents attach a [12-2] signed form indicating that Petitioner was provided an informal interview pursuant to those sections, a [12-3] Notice of Imminent Removal dated 9/3/2026 (the date of Petitioner's detention), and a [12-4] Notice of Revocation of Release dated 9/3/2026 indicating that Petitioner was being detained to enforce his removal order. In his 13 Reply, Petitioner contends that Petitioner's Opposition was insufficient because "[n]one of the [] exhibits includes a declaration from any of the two deportation officers who effected [Petitioner's] re-detention" and because no "details have been provided to attest the procedure or steps ICE has taken to comply with 241.4 and 241.13." Petitioner further argues that Petitioner's informal interview took place on the date of his re-detention such that he "was not given any opportunity to provide a response and/or evidence to address the revocation." As to Petitioner's first point, the burden is on him, not Respondents, to show that injunctive relief is appropriate. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, the court finds that the documentary evidence submitted by Respondents supporting their contention that the informal interview did take place is sufficient at this juncture. As to Petitioner's second point, § 241.4(l)(1) does not provide a notice requirement and merely requires that Petitioner be provided an interview "promptly after his or her return to service custody." The evidence submitted by Respondents indicates that Petitioner was provided an informal interview upon his return to custody, therefore revocation of his release complied with § 241.4. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his re-detention violated this court's 7 Order, and Petitioner's 10 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

Sep 11, 2026

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

Sep 14, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Detainee Not in Custody: 7 Minute Order sent to Kevin David Tovar Suan. Notice of Change of Address due by 10/22/2026. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

#15

Sep 15, 2026

MOTION for RECONSIDERATION by Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Chan, Connie) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#16

Sep 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/17/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 15 Motion by 12:00 PM on 9/22/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 9/24/2026. This matter is not set for a hearing, though the court may schedule one if it determines it is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

Sep 17, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#17

Sep 22, 2026

OPPOSITION by Facility Administrator, Mesa Verde Detention Center to 15 Motion for Reconsideration. (Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#18

Sep 24, 2026

REPLY by Kevin David Tovar Suan re 17 Opposition to Motion. (Chan, Connie) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#19

Sep 30, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Kevin David Tovar Suan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Chan, Connie) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#20

Oct 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 10/1/2026: In Petitioner's 15 Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this court's 14 Order denying Petitioner's 10 Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner contends that the court erred in denying Petitioner's 10 Motion because: (1) "the Notice of Revocation of Release does not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.4" because the "regulation allows a Field Office Director to revoke release only upon a finding that 'revocation is in the public interest and circumstances do not reasonably permit referral of the case to the Executive Associate Commissioner'" whereas here nothing "in the record shows that the Field Office Director made a public interest finding before Petitioner was detained again or referred the case to a more senior official"; (2) the court in "You v. Nielsen," for which Petitioner fails to provide a citation, found that "§ 1231(a) prohibits re-detention absent findings that the individual presents a flight risk or a danger to the community"; and (3) the "Notice of Revocation only states that the government is revoking release to seek a travel document to effectuate Petitioner's expeditious removal to Columbia" but "does not show that a travel document has been obtained." As an initial matter, Petitioner does not address what new facts or law merit reconsideration as required by Local Rule 230(j) or otherwise address why these arguments were not raised in Petitioner's Motion or Reply. This alone is sufficient to merit denial of Petitioner's Motion. Moreover, on the merits of Petitioner's first argument, § 241.4 permits a "district director" to "revoke release of an alien when, in the district director's opinion, revocation is in the public interest and circumstances do not reasonably permit referral of the case to the Executive Associate Commissioner." 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(2). Section 241.4(l) does not require a showing on the record that the district director's "opinion" is that "circumstances do not permit referral of the case to the Executive Associate Commissioner," and leaves that determination to the Government's discretion. As to Petitioner's second argument, in You v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), the court specifically emphasized that "it is undisputed that Petitioner was neither detained nor released pursuant to § 241.4" because he was initially "released in 2000 before his removal order became final" such that § 241.4's procedures did not apply. Here, on the other hand, Petitioner's 10 Motion is predicated on Respondents' alleged failure to comply with § 241.4. Petitioner cannot simultaneously argue that Respondents' failure to comply with § 241.4 mandates his release, and that § 241.4 does not apply to Petitioner's detention. Thus, Petitioner's reliance on You is unavailing. As to Petitioner's third argument, Respondents attached Petitioner's [12-5] unexpired Columbian passport to their 12 Opposition and contend that this document constitutes a travel document. In his Reply, Respondent does not contest the validity of the passport or dispute that it constitutes a travel document. Accordingly, Petitioner's 15 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Petitioner's 19 Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order reiterates the arguments raised in the 15 Motion for Reconsideration and is therefore DENIED for the same reasons. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

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