Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-07153

#1

Sep 08, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, Central Valley Annex by Sadrock Sainrilus. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Deputy Clerk SZ) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#2

Sep 08, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Sadrock Sainrilus. (Deputy Clerk SZ) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

Sep 08, 2026

RECEIPT number 100009523 for $5.00 for Sadrock Sainrllus from Andie Matus. (Deputy Clerk SZ)

#3

Sep 09, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk SZ) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#4

Sep 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) The Court has reviewed the Petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and the related request for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 2). Petitioner (A File #: 244-599-580) asserts that he has been detained since March 2026 (Doc. 2 at 1). He does not adequately explain his delay in seeking his request for a temporary restraining order given the availability of Spanish language form motions and the lack of any requirement to provide supporting documentation for such a motion. He also does not explain why, despite this delay, the Court should treat the situation as an emergency. Thus, the TRO request is untimely, and it is DENIED. Local Rule 231(b). The Court refers the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for a determination on the merits. The Court sets the following briefing schedule, which may be modified by the magistrate judge as needed. Respondents SHALL file their responsive pleading within 21 days. The response SHALL provide the Court with copies of referenced/relevant portions of Petitioner's A-File (including the I-213) and other supporting documents, including available documentation related to any asserted violations of release conditions. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than 7 days after the respondents file their brief. In the meantime, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Court ORDERS that Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States nor transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting 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, the Court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending the hearing, to preserve the Court's jurisdiction and to preserve Petitioner's access to the Court and any subsequent order and finds that Petitioner has satisfied the factors governing the issuance of such preliminary relief signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on September 9, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#5

Sep 09, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Gabriel Andres Soto-Perez for Warden, Central Valley Annex (Soto-Perez, Gabriel) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

Sep 09, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 09, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order on Motion for TRO served on Sadrock Sainrilus. (Deputy Clerk IM)

Sep 09, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Immigration New Case Documents served on Sadrock Sainrilus. (Deputy Clerk SZ)

Sep 09, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#6

Sep 21, 2026

MOTION for RECONSIDERATION of 4 Order Denying Motion for TRO by Sadrock Sainrilus. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#7

Sep 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) The Court has read and considered Petitioner's motion to reconsider (Doc. 6) the Court's denial of his motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 4). Petitioner asserts that there was no delay in bringing his motion for temporary restraining order, despite that it was not filed until 6 months after he was detained, due to language barriers, lack of legal education, and the lack of an attorney. Id. Unfortunately, most every other petitioner experiences these same difficulties and yet most are able to file their motion timely. Even still, what Petitioner fails to appreciate is that the Court's earlier order denying his emergency motion was based on his failure to demonstrate whether Petitioner's detention status should be addressed on shortened time (i.e., as a procedural emergency). Eastern District of California Local Rule 231(b) permits the Court to consider "whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary restraining order." Nothing in the current filing causes the Court to question its prior determination that the issues raised here--no matter their merit--could have been brought earlier by way of a regularly scheduled motion. The evidence of harm cited by counsel is identified by every petitioner who has sought immigration-related habeas relief from this Court in recent months--at the rate of 4 to 5 dozen per week. Petitioner's request is, in effect, an attempt to jump the line ahead of similarly situated individuals. For these reasons, the new request for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 6) is DENIED signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on September 24, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

Sep 24, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 24, 2026

Order on Motion for Reconsideration

Sep 24, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order on Motion served on Sadrock Sainrilus. (Deputy Clerk IM)

#8

Sep 29, 2026

RESPONSE by Warden, Central Valley Annex to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit)(Soto-Perez, Gabriel) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#9

Oct 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry): In the response to the petition, Respondent asserts that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal as of September 15, 2026, and is therefore subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). (ECF No. 8 .) A search of the Executive Office for Immigration Review's ("EOIR") Automated Case Information System using Petitioner's A-Number indicates that, in fact, Petitioner's appeal of the order of removal was received on September 14, 2026, and remains pending. See https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited September 30, 2026). On or before October 9, 2026, Respondent is DIRECTED to file a brief supplemental response to the petition clarifying their position as the statutory basis for Petitioner's detention. Minute order signed by Magistrate Judge Frank J. Singer on 10/1/2026. (Deputy Clerk EV) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Minute Order, served on Sadrock Sainrilus. (Deputy Clerk EV)

Oct 01, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 01, 2026

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

#10

Oct 05, 2026

CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

#11

Oct 08, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by Warden, Central Valley Annex re 9 Minute Order,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,,, 8 Response,. (Soto-Perez, Gabriel) (Entered: 10/08/2026)