Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06660

#1

Aug 21, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center by Henry Eduardo Villa Canales. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#5

Aug 21, 2026

MOTION for IMMEDIATE RELEASE or for a bond hearing by Henry Eduardo Villa Canales. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

Aug 21, 2026

RECEIPT number 100009306 for $5.00 from Henry Eduardo Villa Canales. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

#2

Aug 25, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#3

Aug 25, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center (Weger, Shelley) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

Aug 25, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 2 Immigration New Case Documents served on Henry Eduardo Villa Canales. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

Aug 25, 2026

Service by Mail

#4

Aug 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/27/2026: Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must examine the habeas corpus petition and order a response to the petition unless it "plainly appears" that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. It does not plainly appear that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Therefore, the court orders the government to respond to the petition and sets a briefing schedule. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Within seven days of this order's service, respondent must file an answer to the petition. The answer must address the merits of the petition and set forth the "true cause of the detention." See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Any argument by respondent that petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim must be raised in the answer, which must also address the merits of petitioner's claims. Respondent shall attach any documents necessary for resolving the issues presented in the petition. Arguments that are not supported with relevant evidence will not be considered. 2. Petitioner may file a traverse to respondent's answer within seven days of the date of service of that answer. If no traverse is filed within seven days, the petition and answer are deemed submitted. 3. If respondent learns of petitioner's removal or any other change in petitioner's detention status, respondent shall submit a status report notifying the court as soon as practicably possible. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#6

Aug 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/27/2026: In light of petitioner's pro se status, the court will construe the 5 motion for immediate release as a motion for temporary restraining order. Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 5 motion for temporary restraining order, the court ORDERS that respondent 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 5 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 respondent has already entered Notices of Appearance. Accordingly, respondent shall file a written opposition to the pending 5 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Friday, 8/28/2026. In that opposition, respondent 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 respondent opposes this court ruling on the underlying petition, then respondent is DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in it opposition. Respondent is further directed to include in its 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 respondent's 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. Respondent is also directed to clearly identify in its opposition the source of any other proposed detention authority, including, for instance, a recent review of the detention's factual circumstances by respondent's 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 respondent's 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: 08/27/2026)

Aug 27, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 6 Minute Order served on Henry Eduardo Villa Canales. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Aug 27, 2026

Minute Order

Aug 27, 2026

Service by Mail

Aug 27, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Henry Eduardo Villa Canales. (Deputy Clerk NAC)

#7

Aug 28, 2026

REPLY by Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center re 5 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Weger, Shelley) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#8

Sep 01, 2026

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/31/26 GRATING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE petitioner Henry Eduardo Villa Canales, A-File No. 234-426-221, from respondent's custody. Respondent is ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detainingpetitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances. Petitioner's 5 Motion for Immediate Release is DENIED as having rendered moot by this order granting him habeas relief. CASE CLOSED. (cc Mesa Verde) (Deputy Clerk VLC) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#9

Sep 01, 2026

JUDGMENT dated *09/1/26* pursuant to order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/31/26 in favor of Petitioner. (Deputy Clerk VLC) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Sep 01, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Judgment and 8 Order served on Henry Eduardo Villa Canales. (Deputy Clerk VLC)

Sep 01, 2026

Service by Mail