Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04648

#1

Jun 16, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Acting Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center, Todd Blanche, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, US Department of Homeland Security by Jie Yu. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13467304) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44))(Qin, Susan) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

#2

Jun 17, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk ED) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#3

Jun 17, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Sean Davis, GOVT for Acting Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center,Sean Davis, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Sean Davis, GOVT for Executive Office for Immigration Review,Sean Davis, GOVT for Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Sean Davis, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin,Sean Davis, GOVT for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Davis, Sean) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#4

Jun 17, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's petition writ for habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 1 . The court intends to rule 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 June 18, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED to answer in writing the following questions: 1. In Respondents' view, is Petitioner subject to mandatory detention pursuant to any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act other than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)? If the answer is yes, what is the relevant detention authority and why do Respondents think that it applies to Petitioner? 2. If the relevant detention authority here is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), see Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288 (2018), did Petitioner previously request and was he ever granted any bond hearings before an immigration judge? If the answer is yes, when were the hearings held, what were the outcomes, and what reasons did the immigration judges provide in resolving Petitioner's requests? To the extent Petitioner was previously granted bond hearings, Respondents must attach to their response copies of the immigration judges' dispositive orders. 3. How do Respondents respond to Petitioner's argument that his "prolonged" detention violates his due process rights? Petitioner may file a reply on or before June 23, 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. And given the court's ongoing consideration of the 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: 06/17/2026)

Jun 17, 2026

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

#5

Jun 18, 2026

RESPONSE by Acting Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center, Todd Blanche, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 4 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 213, # 2 Exhibit RAP sheet, # 3 Exhibit NTA, # 4 Exhibit Hearing notices, # 5 Exhibit EOIR)(Davis, Sean) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#6

Jun 22, 2026

Traverse

#7

Jun 23, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Respondents' response, in which they state that Petitioner "may be" subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based on a "conviction for a violation of state law relating to a controlled substance." Dkt. No. 5, at pg. 1. On or before June 26, 2026, Respondents must address in writing the following: 1. To the extent Respondents argue that Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies because he has not challenged the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) pursuant to Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999), Dkt. No. 5, at pg. 6, Respondents must explain why, in their view, a Joseph hearing is not only something that a petitioner must request to challenge a government assertion that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) "does" apply, but that it somehow also is something that a petitioner must request when it is merely possible that the government will assert that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) "may" apply? And, relatedly, why should exhaustion be required if the government cannot identify a plausible factual basis for its assertion that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) applies? 2. Respondents must definitively state in writing whether they are asserting that Petitioner is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). If Respondents are relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), they must specify the subparagraph that applies in their view, and the associated criminal offense. Regarding the applicable subparagraph, Respondents cite in their response 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(1)(A), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), Dkt. No. 5, at pg.2, but both those provisions apply to individuals who are inadmissible. Here, although the Notice to Appear provided by Respondents does not include a charge of removability, see Dkt. No. [5-3], at pg. 1, Petitioner's Form I-213 suggests that he might be charged as being removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B)--that is, a ground of deportability based on Petitioner being a "nonimmigrant overstay," not based on any ground inadmissibility or a criminal offense. Dkt. No. [5-1], at pg. 2. Regarding any relevant criminal offense, Respondents must also specify the criminal offense on which they are relying. While Respondents state that Petitioner has a "conviction," Dkt. No. 5, at pg. 1, Petitioner's rap sheet does not include an associated entry supporting that statement, see Dkt. No. [5-2], at pg. 5 (stating only that a misdemeanor charge for "possession of controlled substance" was "referred to D.A."). Respondents may attach to their response any related conviction documents or other supporting documentation. 3. If Respondents are not taking the position that Petitioner is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), and that he is instead detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), they must say so. If the relevant detention authority is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), Respondents must also answer the following questions. When Petitioner was admitted to the country, did the government make any determinations regarding dangerousness or risk of fight? After Petitioner overstayed his visa, was he subsequently granted employment authorization? If the answer is yes, prior to granting such authorization, did the government consider Petitioner's dangerousness and the risk that he might flee? Petitioner may respond to Respondents' filing on or before July 1, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

Jun 23, 2026

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

#8

Jun 26, 2026

RESPONSE by Acting Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center, Todd Blanche, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to 7 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. (Davis, Sean) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#9

Jun 29, 2026

EO: Respondents "do not assert that Petitioner is definitely detained under [8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)]." Dkt. No. 8, at pg. 2. Thus, the relevant detention authority in this case is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Given the foregoing, the petition appears to raise legal issues addressed in this court and others, including whether Petitioner is entitled to release. See, e.g., Gagik T. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-04337-MWJS, 2026 WL 1837413 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2026); Kharitonova v. Albarran, No. 3:26-cv-01362-JSC, 2026 WL 531441 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026); Kalkan v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-02028-DAD-EFB, 2026 WL 788112 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026). On or before July 1, 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 prior cases such as the ones listed above and justify denying the petition, or indicate this matter is not substantively distinguishable. To the extent Respondents believe that pre-deprivation process is not required for someone in Petitioner's position--that is, for someone who was admitted on a visa, filed a timely asylum application, was granted work authorization, reported as instructed for an interview in connection with an application to register for permanent residence or adjust status, and was arrested because he had overstayed his visa, see Dkt. No. [5-1], at pg.2--they should identify the strongest cases supporting their view. In their response, Respondents must also provide the grant and expiration date(s) for Petitioner's work authorization(s). Petitioner may file a reply on or before July 6, 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) Modified on 6/29/2026 (AB). (Entered: 06/29/2026)

Jun 29, 2026

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

#10

Jun 30, 2026

RESPONSE by Acting Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center, Todd Blanche, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to 9 Minute Order,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,,. (Davis, Sean) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#11

Jun 30, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#12

Jun 30, 2026

Judgment