Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04712

#1

Jun 18, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Janneth Milagros Varillas Ancalle. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) Modified on 6/24/2026 (KS). (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#2

Jun 18, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Janneth Milagros Varillas Ancalle. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Trochecklist, # 6 TRO Proposed Order, # 7 PI Proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#3

Jun 18, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk ED) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#4

Jun 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on June 18, 2026: This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Ex-Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). (ECF No. 2 .) The Court has reviewed Petitioner's motion and finds Petitioner has met her burden establishing a TRO is warranted under the factors articulated in Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Petitioner has established: (1) a likelihood of success on her claims that her detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause; (2) Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO; (3) the balance of equities tip in Petitioner's favor; and (4) a TRO is in the public interest. The Court has repeatedly ruled on the issues presented in the instant case. See, e.g., Morales-Flores v. Lyons, No. 1:25-CV-01640-TLN-EFB, 2025 WL 3552841, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025). Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for TRO is GRANTED. (ECF No. 2 .) To return Petitioner to the status quo ante litem, Respondents are ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner (A# 245-504-433) under the same conditions she was released prior to her current detention. At the time of release, Respondents must return all of Petitioner's documents and possessions. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including a minimum of seven-days' notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder where: (a) Respondents show material changed circumstances demonstrate a significant likelihood of Petitioner's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, or (b) Respondents demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the government's interest in protecting the public or ensuring Petitioner appears at future immigration proceedings outweighs his constitutionally protected interest in remaining free from detention. Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present at the hearing. Respondents may apply to the Court for modification or dissolution of the TRO on two days' notice to Petitioner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4). The bond requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) is waived. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the California City Detention Center. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings. SO ORDERED. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (cc: Ca City) (Deputy Clerk MDK) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

PAYMENT for habeas petition filing fee in the amount of $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13477139. (Salgado, Mario)

Jun 18, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#5

Jul 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/6/2026: Respondent is granted 14 days to file a response to petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent shall include with the response all exhibits necessary to the determination of the issues raised in the petition. Petitioner may file a reply within 14 days of service of the response. Petitioner A No. 245 504 433. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

Jul 06, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Jul 22, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Respondents. (Disparte, Quinn) Modified on 7/31/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#7

Jul 23, 2026

OPPOSITION to PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Respondents. (Disparte, Quinn) Modified on 8/10/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#8

Jul 23, 2026

EXHIBIT A (I-213) to 7 Opposition by Respondents. (Disparte, Quinn) Modified on 8/10/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#9

Jul 23, 2026

EXHIBIT B (RAP Sheet) to 7 Opposition by Respondents. (Disparte, Quinn) Modified on 8/10/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#10

Aug 06, 2026

TRAVERSE/REPLY by Janneth Milagros Varillas Ancalle. (Salgado, Mario) Modified on 8/14/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#11

Sep 08, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text Only): Petitioner proceeds with a 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging arrest and detention by ICE. The district court has ordered, by way of preliminary injunctive relief, Petitioner's release and that rearrest not occur absent certain protections. Prior to arrest, Petitioner was released into the United States by ICE premised upon either an explicit or implicit finding that Petitioner was not dangerous or a flight risk. While on release Petitioner was arrested on one occasion in Utah, but never charged with or convicted of a crime. There is no suggestion that Petitioner did not otherwise comply with her conditions of release. While in ICE custody, Petitioner was never provided with a hearing before an Immigration Judge as to whether custody was appropriate. Considering all of these factors, and consistent with the court's rulings in Martinez v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-1826 TLN CKD P, ECF No. 14 ; Rebolledo v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-1904 CKD P, ECF No. 15 ; and Esteban-Escalante v. Warden, Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, 1:26-cv-0096 DC CKD P, ECF No. 10, the court finds Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated, RECOMMENDS THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE GRANTED, THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BE MADE PERMANENT and THIS CASE BE CLOSED. 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 seven (7) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within seven (7) days after 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

Sep 08, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#12

Sep 15, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations