Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-07286

#1

Sep 10, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Detention Facility by Richard Guitemberg Brutus. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#2

Sep 10, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Richard Guitemberg Brutus. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

RECEIPT number 100009554 for $5.00 for Richard Guitemberg Brutus from California City Immigration Processing. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

#3

Sep 14, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#4

Sep 14, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Joseph Douglas Harman, GOVT for Warden, California City Detention Facility (Harman, Joseph) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 14, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Immigration New Case Documents served on Richard Guitemberg Brutus. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

#5

Sep 15, 2026

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/15/26 on 09/15/26 DIRECTING Respondents to file a response to the petition within 7 days of the date of this order and shall include with the response any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the habeas application. Petitioner's optional reply/traverse to an answer or opposition to a motion to dismiss, if any, is due within 14 days after service with the response. (Deputy Clerk KML) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

Sep 15, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 15, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Order served on Richard Guitemberg Brutus. (Deputy Clerk KML)

#6

Sep 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/16/2026: In light of petitioner's pro se status and request for a temporary restraining order in his 1 habeas petition, the court CONSTRUES the 1 habeas petition as including a motion for temporary restraining order. Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 1 motion for temporary restraining order, the court ORDERS that respondents 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 1 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 respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance if they have not already done so. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 1 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 9/17/2026. In that opposition, respondents 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 respondents oppose this court ruling on the underlying petition, then respondents are DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in their opposition. Respondents are further directed to include in their 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 respondents' 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. Respondents are also directed to clearly identify in their opposition the source of any other proposed detention authority, including, for instance, a recent review of the detention's factual circumstances by respondents' 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 respondents' 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: 09/16/2026)

#7

Sep 16, 2026

REPLY by Warden, California City Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I-213, # 2 Exhibit NTA, # 3 Exhibit Bond Order)(Harman, Joseph) Modified on 9/18/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 09/16/2026)

Sep 16, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 6 Minute Order served on Richard Guitemberg Brutus. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Sep 16, 2026

Minute Order

Sep 16, 2026

Service by Mail

#8

Sep 18, 2026

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/18/26 GRANTING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE petitioner Richard Guitemberg Brutus, A-File No. 233-080-645, from respondent's custody. Respondent is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances. Petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED as having been rendered moot by this order granting his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits. Petitioner's 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED as moot. CASE CLOSED. (cc Cal City) (Deputy Clerk VLC) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#9

Sep 18, 2026

JUDGMENT dated *09/18/26* pursuant to order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/18/26 in favor of Petitioner. (Deputy Clerk VLC) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 18, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 18, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Judgment and 8 Order served on Richard Guitemberg Brutus. (Deputy Clerk VLC)