Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03149

#1

Apr 24, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Golden State Annex Detention Facility by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#2

Apr 24, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#3

Apr 24, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#4

Apr 24, 2026

MOTION for APPOINTMENT of COUNSEL by Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#5

Apr 27, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 6/1/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#6

Apr 27, 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. (Anonymous) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#7

Apr 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/27/2026: (Text Only Entry).Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, 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 3 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 (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. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 4/29/2026. 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 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 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, et al., No. 2:26-cv-00832-DAD-DMC, 2026 WL 765027 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026); Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 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, et al., 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.(Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 27, 2026

Minute Order

Apr 27, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

#8

Apr 29, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, REQUEST to LIFT No Removal/No Transfer Order, OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief, and RESPONSE to 7 Minute Order by Golden State Annex Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 5/6/2026 (KS). (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#9

Apr 29, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#10

Apr 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/29/2026: (Text Only Entry); DENYING 3 Motion for TRO. On 4/24/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for temporary restraining order in which he requests his immediate release. (Doc. No. 3 .) Petitioner argues therein that his detention is prolonged because he has been detained for more than six months (Doc. No. 3 at 2-4), however, petitioner states in his habeas petition that he was detained on 4/16/2026 by immigration officials (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) On 4/27/2026, the court issued an initial scheduling order regarding petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) in which the court ordered that respondent not "take any action to remove petitioner from the United States or to move petitioner out of the Eastern District of California." (Doc. No. 7 .) On 4/29/2026, respondents filed an opposition to petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order, in which they argue that petitioner is properly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 because he is subject to a reinstated removal order and, if not for the court's order that petitioner not be transferred or removed, petitioner would have already been removed from the United States. (Doc. Nos. 8 at 1-2; [8-2] at 1-2.) On 4/24/2026, prior to the issuance of the court's order that respondents not transfer petitioner, petitioner was transferred to the Florence Staging Facility in Florence, Arizona, in preparation for his removal. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) The court retains jurisdiction over this petition despite petitioner's transfer. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004) ("[W] hen the Government moves a habeas petitioner after she properly files a petition naming her immediate custodian, the District Court retains jurisdiction[.]"). Noncitizens subject to final removal orders who have previously been removed and reenter the United States without authorization are subject to detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 533 (2021) (holding that § 1231, not § 1226, governs in such situations). A noncitizen "may be detained only for 'a period reasonably necessary to bring about that [noncitizen's] removal from the United States." Id. at 529 (quoting Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001)). It appears that petitioner is subject to a reinstated removal order and that he is currently detained to bring about his removal. Therefore, petitioner is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that his detention is prolonged and violates due process. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) is DENIED. The court's order that respondents not transfer or remove petitioner pending a ruling on petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ) is DISSOLVED. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ), motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ), and motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 4 ) are REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

Apr 29, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Apr 30, 2026

Service by Mail

Apr 30, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

Apr 30, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Minute Order served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

#11

May 05, 2026

Notice of Change of Address

#12

May 07, 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 LMS) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#13

May 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/26/2026: On 4/24/2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1 .) Respondent filed a response on 4/29/2026 indicating that it intended to reinstate petitioner's removal order and remove him from the United States. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Respondent is hereby ordered to file a status report by 6/2/2026 addressing petitioner's custody status. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Minute Order

May 26, 2026

Service by Mail

May 26, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 13 Minute Order served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk NAC)

#14

May 29, 2026

STATUS REPORT re Petitioner's Current Custody and Immigration Status by Golden State Annex Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 6/3/2026 (KS). (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#15

May 29, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text only) signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/29/2026: On 4/24/2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1 .) On 4/29/2026, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, indicating that petitioner was subject to a reinstated removal order. (ECF No. 8 .) On that same day, the court denied petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and dissolved the court's prior order that respondent not transfer or remove petitioner. (ECF No. 10 .) On 5/29/2026, respondent confirmed that petitioner had been removed to Mexico. (ECF No. 14 .) Mootness is a jurisdictional issue that the court is obliged to raise sua sponte. Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2005). The petition is moot due to petitioner's removal to Mexico. See, e.g., Diestra Eleorreiaga v. Warden of Golden State Annex, No. 1:26-cv-0680-TLN-JDP, 2026 WL 622844, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Harold D.E. v. Andrews, 2026 WL 896161 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2026) (moot when petitioner removed to Peru); Sandhu, v. Wofford, et al., No. 1:25-cv-0972-KES-EPG (HC), 2025 WL 3523036 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 714629 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026) (moot when petitioner removed to India); Vay, v. Chestnut, et al., No. 1:25-cv-1810-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 675130, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026) (moot when petitioner removed to Vietnam). Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: (1) the court DENY petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, as moot; and (2) the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response shall be served and filed within seven days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#16

May 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 5/29/2026: In light of my findings and recommendations at ECF No. 15, petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 4, is DENIED as moot. Additionally, petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

May 29, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 16 Minute Order served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk NAC)

May 29, 2026

Service by Mail

May 29, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 15 Findings and Recommendations served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk NAC)

May 29, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Jun 09, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward, attempted not known: 15 Findings and Recommendations sent to Jose Manuel Magana. Notice of Change of Address due by 7/17/2026. (Deputy Clerk AKP)

Jun 11, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Not deliverable as addressed, Not in Custody, Released, Unable to Forward: 13 Minute Order sent to Jose Manuel Magana. Notice of Change of Address due by 7/20/2026. (Deputy Clerk AKP)

Jun 15, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Released, Not in Custody, Not Deliverable as Addressed: 16 Minute Order sent to Jose Manuel Magana. Notice of Change of Address due by 7/23/2026. (Deputy Clerk AKP)

#17

Jul 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#18

Jul 13, 2026

Judgment

Jul 13, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 18 Judgment and 17 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations served on Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk JJD)

Jul 13, 2026

Service by Mail

Jul 22, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward, released: 18 Judgment and 17 Order sent to Jose Manuel Magana. (Deputy Clerk DAR)