Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03354

#1

May 01, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Current or Acting United States Attorney General, Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security by Henry Armando Vasquez-Lopez. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#2

May 01, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Henry Armando Vasquez-Lopez. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#3

May 01, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Henry Armando Vasquez-Lopez. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#4

May 01, 2026

ORDER AUTHORIZING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS as to Henry Armando Vasquez-Lopez signed by Visiting Judge Micah WJ Smith on 5/1/2026. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#5

May 01, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, and Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 3 . Upon review of the Petition, the court believes this case would benefit from the appointment of counsel. Petitioner's 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel, is therefore GRANTED. Within seven days from the date of this order, the appointing authority for the Eastern District of California shall identify counsel and send counsel's contact information to Smith_Orders@hid.uscourts.gov, which shall update the docket to reflect counsel's appointment. If counsel is not a member of the Eastern District of California Criminal Justice Act Panel, within seven days of this Order the Federal Defender shall file a motion to appoint counsel as CJA counsel pro hac vice. Within fourteen days of appointment of counsel, Petitioner may supplement the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of the petition on the Federal Defender. After counsel is appointed, the court will set a schedule for briefing on the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. And given the court's ongoing consideration of Petitioner's Petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondents shall not transfer or otherwise take Petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting court's "express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction"). IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

SERVICE BY EMAIL: A PDF copy of Dkt. No. 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Dkt. No. 5 Entering Order was served by email on the Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California at zzCAEml_Appointments_Habeas@fd.org on May 1, 2026. (Deputy Clerk AB)

May 01, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 5 Entering Order, was served on Henry Armando Vasquez-Lopez at the address of record on May 1, 2026. (Deputy Clerk AB)

#6

May 02, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Current or Acting United States Attorney General,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/02/2026)

#7

May 04, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

#8

May 04, 2026

Notice of Related Case

May 04, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Immigration New Case Documents, 4 Order Authorizing IFP Status, Order on Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis served on Henry Armando Vasquez-Lopez. (Deputy Clerk MR)

May 04, 2026

Service by Mail

#9

May 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#10

May 15, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#11

May 15, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's 10 Supplement to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The issues raised in the Petition appear to mirror those previously addressed by other district judges in many prior cases. See Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026); Galvan v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-1766, 2026 WL 183724 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:25-cv-1766, at Dkt. No. 14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2026); Avalos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-1199, 2026 WL 654448 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 825717 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2026). Given the substantial percolation of these issues, the court intends to rule directly on the Petition. See 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."). On or before May 18, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to the following two questions: 1. Do Respondents dispute that Petitioner appears to be a member of the class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025)? 2. Regardless of Petitioner's membership in the Maldonado Bautista class, are there are any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from prior orders, such as Galvan v. Noem and Avalos v. Chestnut, which resolved similar petitions on statutory grounds under the INA? Respondents should indicate whether any factual legal distinctions exist that would justify denying the Petition, or indicate this matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a reply on or before May 20, 2026. This matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Minute Order

#12

May 17, 2026

RESPONSE to 11 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Current or Acting United States Attorney General, Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DHS Records)(Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/17/2026)

#13

May 18, 2026

Order

#14

May 18, 2026

Judgment AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#15

May 21, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Current or Acting United States Attorney General, Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bond Order)(Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

#16

Jun 15, 2026

Reopen Case

#17

Jun 15, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's 16 Motion to Reopen Case and Enforce Judgment. It is not clear from the face of the Motion whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. The court therefore orders the following: Within seven days of the date of service of this order, Respondents SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to the Motion. The court notes that Petitioner's Motion erroneously states that "this Court ordered that Respondents have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or a flight risk," Dkt. No. 16, at pg. 5, whereas the court's order only compelled Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing "in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations," Dkt. No. 13, at pg. 5; Respondents' response should therefore focus on Petitioner's argument that "[u]nder any burden of proof, the Immigration Judge's decision denying bond was an abuse of discretion." Dkt. No. 16, at pg. 7. Also within seven days after service of this order, Respondents SHALL FILE any and all transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the Motion. The transcripts or other documents shall only be filed electronically and, to the extent practicable, provided in Optical Character Recognition ("OCR") format. Respondents shall not file a hard copy of the transcripts or other documents unless so ordered by this court. Petitioner MAY FILE a Reply within seven days of the service of Respondents' Answer. All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. These dates should be considered as firm by all parties. If any party requires additional time, that party should file a motion for amendment of the schedule before a deadline has passed and explain in detail why the party cannot comply with this schedule. Extensions of time will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

Jun 15, 2026

Minute Order

#18

Jun 22, 2026

EXHIBIT A-Bond Hearing Transcript by Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Current or Acting United States Attorney General, Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility re 17 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#19

Jun 22, 2026

RESPONSE by Current or Acting Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Current or Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, Current or Acting United States Attorney General, Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility to 16 Motion to Reopen Case. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A-Bond Record of Proceedings, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B-ECAS Screenshot, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C-Removal Proceeding Records)(Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#20

Jul 10, 2026

Order

Jul 17, 2026

Minute Order

#24

Aug 03, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#25

Aug 04, 2026

EO: On August 3, 2026, Petitioner filed a 24 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and Request for Immediate Release from Custody. ECF No. 24. This case was originally filed as an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As of the date of Petitioner's filing, however, no petition for writ of habeas corpus was pending before the court, because the court granted the petition in part on May 18, 2026. ECF No. 13 . No new petition has since been filed. And because no petition is currently before the court in this § 2241 action, the court is "unable to consider petitioner's . . . motion for temporary restraining order." Dustin v. Gipson, No. 2:11-cv-2752, 2012 WL 487988, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2012); see also Smith v. Gonzalez, No. 4:17-cv-05082, 2017 WL 11552986 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 15, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 11552985 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2017); cf. Sudduth v. Gaspar, 931 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1991) (mem.). The motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice to a future TRO being brought if Petitioner initiates a new and separate action and properly files a habeas petition therein. IT IS SO ORDERED.(JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 04, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#26

Aug 11, 2026

Enforce Judgment