Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-02066
(HC) Urdaneta v. Chestnut
Active
Case Information
Filed: December 30, 2025
Assigned to:
Kirk E. Sherriff
Referred to:
Stanley A. Boone
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Active
Last Activity:
January 09, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
Dec 30, 2025
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Yon Kervis Urdaneta. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12711740) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration Authenticating Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exh. A, # 4 Exhibit Exh. B, # 5 Exhibit Exh. C, # 6 Exhibit Exh. D, # 7 Exhibit Exh. E, # 8 Exhibit Exh. F, # 9 Exhibit Exh. G, # 10 Exhibit Exh. H, # 11 Exhibit Exh. I, # 12 Exhibit Exh. J)(Weiss, Peter) (Entered: 12/30/2025)
Main Document:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Dec 30, 2025
ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due within thirty (30) days. (Deputy Clerk OFR) (Entered: 12/30/2025)
Main Document:
Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider
#3
Dec 31, 2025
06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response
Main Document:
06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response
#4
Dec 31, 2025
DOCUMENT(S) SERVED ELECTRONICALLY: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, served on United States Attorney's Office. (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 12/31/2025)
#5
Jan 02, 2026
Temporary Restraining Order
Main Document:
Temporary Restraining Order
#6
Jan 05, 2026
MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 1/5/2026: The Court has reviewed petitioner's 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus and 5 motion for temporary restraining order. The Court has addressed the legal issues raised by the 5 motion for temporary restraining order on previous occasions. See e.g., Clene C.D. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01463-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3492118 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); Carmen G.C. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01648-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3521304 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025); Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025). On or before January 8, 2026, respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Court's prior orders in Clene C.D. v. Robbins, Carmen G.C. v. Robbins, Bilal A. v. Wofford, and W.V.S.M. v. Wofford and justify denying the motion, or indicate the matter is not substantively distinguishable. The response shall provide the Court with copies of all referenced/relevant portions of petitioner's A-File, in addition to all of the following documents if they were provided to petitioner: (1) Form I-862, Notice to Appear; (2) Form I-220A, Order of Release on Recognizance; (3) Form I-286, Notice of Custody Determination; (4) any document authorizing parole; and (5) any and all available records documenting and/or detailing the nature of any alleged violations of supervised release. Respondents shall also state their position on whether the motion should be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing in this matter. By January 5, 2026, to the extent not already accomplished, petitioner's counsel is directed: (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, the motion for temporary restraining order, the accompanying papers, and a copy of this Order, by e-mail to all appropriate recipients including the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California, with a copy to usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov, and by overnight mail; and (2) promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter notices of appearance. (Voyles, J.) (Entered: 01/05/2026)
#7
Jan 05, 2026
Notice (Other)
Main Document:
Notice (Other)
Jan 05, 2026
Minute Order
#8
Jan 06, 2026
Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings
Jan 08, 2026
Minute Order
#12
Jan 09, 2026
Reply to Response to Motion
Main Document:
Reply to Response to Motion
Parties
Party
Party
Party
Party
Party
Party
Attorney
Attorney