Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06940

#1

Aug 31, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against California City Warden by Jose Ramirez Hernandez. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#2

Sep 01, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#3

Sep 01, 2026

ORDER AUTHORIZING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS as to Jose Ramirez Hernandez signed by Visiting Judge Micah WJ Smith on 9/1/2026. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#4

Sep 01, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for California City Warden (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Sep 01, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 01, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Order Authorizing IFP Status, 2 Immigration New Case Documents served on Jose Ramirez Hernandez. (Deputy Clerk MR)

#5

Sep 02, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. No. 1 . The court intends to rule 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 September 4, 2026, Respondent is ORDERED to answer in writing the following questions:1.Is Petitioner subject to a final order of removal? If so, after being ordered removed, was Petitioner released under an order of supervision or otherwise released from custody by immigration authorities? If Petitioner was released, are there any factual or legal bases to distinguish this case from cases like Afshin A.N. v. Chestnut, No. CV 1:26-cv-03813-MWJS, 2026 WL 1726781 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)?2. In Respondent's view, is Petitioner subject to mandatory detention pursuant to any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act other than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)? If the answer is yes, what is the relevant detention authority and why does Respondent think that it applies to Petitioner?3.Other than the circumstances covered by the first question, was Petitioner otherwise ever detained and released by immigration authorities? If the answer is yes, what were the circumstances of that release, and are there any factual or legal bases to distinguish this case from the many prior cases in which other petitioners in a variety of circumstances have been granted immediate release? See, e.g., Maxo Ben G. v. Warden of Mesa Verde Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-03776-MWJS, 2026 WL 1457554 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2026); Kallebe C.L. v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-03651-MWJS, 2026 WL 1374754 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2026); A.J.S.M.P. v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-03163-MWJS, 2026 WL 1190220 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2026); Sergio D.L.S. v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-02821-MWJS, 2026 WL 1049713 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026).4. If Petitioner was not previously detained and released by immigration authorities, are there any factual or legal bases to distinguish this case from the many prior cases in which other petitioners have been granted bond hearings? See, e.g., Juana G.R.P. v. Warden of the Cal. City Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-04406-MWJS, 2026 WL 1712375 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2026); Bertoldo B.F. v. Warden, Cal. City Immigr. Processing Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-03634-MWJS, 2026 WL 1638322 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2026)?5. Was Petitioner previously granted a bond hearing before an immigration judge? If the answer is yes, when was that hearing held, what was the outcome, and what was the reasoning underlying the immigration judge's decision?6. Petitioner may file a reply on or before September 9, 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. Given the court's ongoing consideration of the petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondent shall not transfer or otherwise take Petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. 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"). IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

Sep 02, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 02, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 5 Entering Order was served on Jose Ramirez Hernandez on 9/2/2026. (Deputy Clerk AB)

Sep 02, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Sep 03, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#8

Sep 03, 2026

Judgment

Sep 03, 2026

Service by Mail