Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04411

#1

Jun 08, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility by Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk AKP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#2

Jun 08, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk AKP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#3

Jun 08, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk AKP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#4

Jun 08, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk AKP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#5

Jun 09, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk AKP) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#6

Jun 09, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

Jun 09, 2026

Service by Mail

Jun 09, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Immigration New Case Documents served on Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk AKP)

#7

Jun 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/10/2026: On 6/8/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus. He subsequently filed a 2 motion for a temporary restraining order. Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending motion for temporary restraining order, 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 request for temporary restraining order. Further, the court has conducted a preliminary review of the 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 for a temporary restraining order, then the court may also rule on the merits of the underlying habeas corpus 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 corpus petition and motion for preliminary injunction simultaneously).Counsel for respondents have already entered a 6 notice of appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending motion for a temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on 6/12/2026. 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, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); 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 merits of the underlying petition, then respondents are DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in their opposition. Respondents may also respond to petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel and motion to proceed in forma pauperis in their response due 6/12/2026, as well as petitioner's request in his habeas corpus petition to proceed solely via his initials. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

Jun 10, 2026

Service by Mail

Jun 10, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Jun 10, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Jun 11, 2026

ANSWER (Opposition) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief, and RESPONSE to 7 Minute Order by Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 6/16/2026 (KS). (Entered: 06/11/2026)

#9

Jun 24, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#10

Jun 24, 2026

Judgment

Jun 24, 2026

Service by Mail

Jun 24, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Judgment and 9 Order served on Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

Jul 09, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Vacant, unable to forward, released: 10 Judgment and 9 Order sent to Erick Rafael Hernandez-Quevedo. (Deputy Clerk DAR)