Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-07819

#1

Sep 24, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Pedro Saucedo Jaimes. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13921959) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Kaur, Gurpreet) Modified on 9/30/2026 (KS). (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#2

Sep 24, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk SZ) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#3

Sep 24, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT added for All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 9/30/2026 (KS). (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#4

Sep 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/30/2026. Petitioner, Pedro Saucedo Jaimes (A# 234-600-862), through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition asserts, among other things, that petitioner's detention without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). ECF No. 1. With respect to the INA claim, the Ninth Circuit recently held that "[noncitizens] present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A)." Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No 25-6842, 183 F.4th 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2026). This court has also reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Acevedo Duran v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01108 DC CSK, 2026 WL 539409 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026), Zuniga Cruz v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01818 DC EFB, 2026 WL 890471 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2026), Calle-Brito v. Santacruz, No. 1:26-cv-02355 DC DMC, 2026 WL 1482712 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2026). Additionally, this court has addressed petitioner's due process claim. See Ramirez Godinez v. Warden of California City Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-5584 DC AC, 2026 WL 2455251 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2026), findings and recommendations adopted, 2026 WL 2494928 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2026); Garcia Flores v. Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Facility, No. 1:26-cv-5387 DC AC, 2026 WL 2494915 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2026), report and recommendations adopted, 2026 WL 2594117 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2026).Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, respondents are directed to file a response within 7 days from the date of this order, which shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues that materially distinguish it from Rodriguez Vazquez, Acevedo Duran, Zuniga Cruz, Calle-Brito, Ramirez Godinez, Garcia Flores, 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. The response shall include petitioner's Form I-213 for each immigration encounter, any orders of release or detention, any custody warrants, notices, or decisions, and if respondent disputes any factual representations in the operative petition, any and all documents necessary to support their view of the facts. Petitioner's reply, if any, is due within 7 days of being served a copy of the respondents' response. Respondents shall NOT TRANSFER petitioner outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions...."); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that federal courts have the power to "to preserve the court's jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency's action"). This order does not prohibit the temporary transfer of petitioner outside of the district for urgent medical care, though petitioner shall be returned to the district upon the conclusion of such care. As soon as practicable, respondents shall notify the court of any such transfer. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#5

Sep 30, 2026

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Pedro Saucedo Jaimes for attorney Isai Bonilla to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 300, receipt number ACAEDC-13951320) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

Sep 30, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Oct 02, 2026

PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/1/2026 GRANTING 5 Application. Added attorney Isai Bonilla, PHV for Pedro Saucedo Jaimes. The Pro Hac Vice Attorney is directed to request Pro Hac Vice access for the Eastern District of California through PACER. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

#7

Oct 05, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Pedro Saucedo Jaimes. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion for TRO, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bonilla, Isai) (Entered: 10/05/2026)

#8

Oct 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 10/5/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Further, this court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See e.g., Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026), and Barajas Ortiz v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01167-DC-SCR, 2026 WL 508419 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026). 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 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 10/7/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Rodriguez Vazquez, Alvarez Maciel, and Barajas Ortiz. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 10/8/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in 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 CRS) (Entered: 10/05/2026)

Oct 05, 2026

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