Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03600

#1

May 11, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Respondents by Fernando Viera Reyes. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13307259) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ruben Loyo, # 2 Exhibit A (12/1/25 Release Request), # 3 Exhibit B (4/22/26 Release Request), # 4 Exhibit C (12/15/25 BIA filing confirmation), # 5 Exhibit D (4/7/26 Medical Records), # 6 Declaration of Fernando Viera, # 7 Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Wilcox - Gomez Ruiz v. ICE, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet)(Linares Garcia, Tania) M (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#2

May 11, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Fernando Viera Reyes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Points and Authorities, # 3 Declaration Ex A to Memo - Declaration of Ruben Loyo, # 4 TRO Checklist)(Linares Garcia, Tania) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#3

May 11, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#4

May 11, 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: 05/11/2026)

#5

May 12, 2026

Application for Pro Hac Vice and Proposed Order

#6

May 12, 2026

Application for Pro Hac Vice and Proposed Order

#7

May 13, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#8

May 14, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/14/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court GRANTS the parties' 7 Joint Motion to Establish Briefing Schedule and hereby CONVERTS Petitioner's 2 Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One and Three of the Petition. See, e.g., Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). 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). Pursuant to the parties' 7 Stipulation on setting briefing schedule on the pending Motion, Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion by 5/22/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 6/1/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One and Three only, to the extent a ruling on those Counts 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: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#9

May 15, 2026

Order on Application for Pro Hac Vice

#10

May 21, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#11

May 26, 2026

Order on Application for Pro Hac Vice

#12

Jun 01, 2026

REPLY by Fernando Viera Reyes re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 10 Opposition to Motion. (Loyo, Ruben) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#13

Jun 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/18/2026: In Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, which the court converted into a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Petitioner contends that his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) has grown unconstitutionally prolonged under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable because the Ninth Circuit has stayed his removal pending his appeal of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner acknowledges that he was provided a bond hearing in October 2024 but argues this bond hearing is insufficient to protect his procedural right to due process as it occurred over eighteen months ago, and the Immigration Judge did not consider recent material changes to the circumstances effecting his flight risk and threat to community safety, including his prostate cancer diagnosis and pending appeals. In their 10 Opposition, Respondents argue that Zadvydas does not apply to Petitioner's claim as the only delay in his removal is attributable to his appeal of his order of removal, such that his detention is not "indefinite" or "potentially permanent" because he will be removed following completion of his appeal. The court finds the Ninth Circuit's decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011), persuasive on this issue. In Diouf, the Ninth Circuit held that the canon of constitutional avoidance requires that a noncitizen subject to prolonged detention under § 1231(a)(6) due to his appeal of his order of removal is "entitled to release on bond unless the government establishes that the alien is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community." Diouf, 634 F.3d at 1086. The Supreme Court reversed Diouf in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573 (2022), in which the Court held that "[t]here is no plausible construction of the text of § 1231(a)(6) that requires the government to provide bond hearings with the procedures mandated by" the court in Diouf. The Court in Johnson, however, did not address whether a noncitizen may otherwise be constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing under § 1231(a)(6) following prolonged detention, only that the statute does not inherently require one. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1201 (9th Cir. 2022) ("[A]fter the Supreme Court's decisions... it remains undetermined whether the Due Process Clause requires additional bond procedures under any immigration detention statute.") Courts in this district have applied the reasoning in Diouf to find that individual noncitizens are entitled to an additional bond hearing when their detention under § 1231(a)(6) grows prolonged due to ongoing litigation challenging the removal order. Hilario M.R. v. Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center, No. 1:24-cv-00998-EPG-HC, 2025 WL 1158841, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2025) ("The Court holds that the government must justify Petitioner's continued confinement under § 1231(a) by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community.") The court finds that, considering the unique circumstances of Petitioner's case, where he has been detained for over eighteen months since his last bond hearing, and where he has identified numerous changed circumstances that potentially affect his risk of flight or danger to the community, Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that he is constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. Accordingly, Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents shall, within fourteen (14) days of issuance of this Order, provide Petitioner Fernando Viera Reyes (A-074-334-561) with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge at which the Government shall bear the burden of justifying Petitioner's continued detention by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) Petitioner's Request for Immediate Release is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#14

Jun 30, 2026

Dismiss

#15

Jul 14, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#16

Jul 14, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#17

Jul 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/15/2026: Petitioner's 16 Motion to Enforce Judgment (Preliminary Injunction) set for hearing on 8/19/2026 is ordered SUBMITTED without appearance and without argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The hearing date of 8/19/2026 is VACATED. If the court subsequently concludes that oral argument is necessary, a hearing will be set and the parties will be notified accordingly. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Jul 15, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#18

Jul 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 7/16/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 16 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 16 Motion to Enforce Judgment by 12:00 PM on 7/20/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 7/21/2026. This matter is not set for a hearing, though the court may schedule one if it determines it is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 16, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#19

Jul 20, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#20

Jul 21, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#21

Jul 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 7/22/2026: In his 16 motion to enforce, Petitioner argues Respondents violated this court's 13 order granting Petitioner's 2 preliminary injunction because the immigration judge failed to apply the correct legal standard and made erroneous conclusions as to Petitioner's dangerousness and flight risk at his 6/29/2026 bond hearing. In their 19 opposition, Respondents dispute both points, argue that Petitioner should have exhausted his remedies, and highlight that the [16-7] amended order shows the Immigration Judge considered the extensive evidence put on by the parties and found that "the Government met its burden by clear and convincing evidence." The Immigration Judge considered: Petitioner's "family ties and a long history of residence in the United States, all of his rehab efforts, his medical diagnosis, his plans on release"; the severity of Petitioner's past criminal conduct including, "first-degree murder and second-degree robbery" and "possession of a controlled substance in prison"; Respondents' evidence that "newly released prisoners have the highest rate of recidivism"; Petitioner's membership in the Sureno gang for 20 years and MS gang for 26 years; renunciation of his gang membership in 2022; and fights while in prison. (Doc. No. 14-1.) After reviewing the briefs and evidence provided by the parties, this court finds that Respondents did not violate its 13 order, which required Respondents to provide Petitioner "with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge at which the Government shall bear the burden of justifying Petitioner's continued detention by clear and convincing evidence." To the extent Petitioner disputes the weight the Immigration Judge put on any particular evidence, "the Court lacks the ability to second-guess the immigration judge's weighing of the evidence." Loba L.M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00611-JLT-SAB, 2026 WL 710307, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026) (citation modified). Similarly, contentions that the evidence submitted to the immigration judge was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard is properly raised to the Board of Immigration Appeals, not this court. Id. at *8 ("Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the immigration judge's bond determination rather than the constitutionality of the process by which that determination was reached... Complaints about the conclusion the IJ reached must be presented through the normal immigration appeal process."). For these reasons, Petitioner's 16 motion to enforce the court's 13 order is DENIED. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Jul 22, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment