Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-05341

#1

Jul 10, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin by Mirlena Jasmin Figueroa. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13571949) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit ICE Detainee Locator, # 3 Exhibit Inmate Condensed Chart Report, # 4 Exhibit Notice to Appear)(Narciso, Tania) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

#2

Jul 10, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Mirlena Jasmin Figueroa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Inmate Condensed Chart Report, # 2 Exhibit News Articles, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet TRO Checklist)(Narciso, Tania) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

#3

Jul 13, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#4

Jul 13, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Elisa M. Rodriguez for Sergio Albarran,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Christopher Chestnut,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Todd M. Lyons,Elisa M. Rodriguez for Markwayne Mullin (Rodriguez, Elisa) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#5

Jul 13, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Dkt. No. 1, and motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 2 . 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 July 15, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED to answer in writing the following questions: 1. Is Petitioner subject to a final order of removal? 2. 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 so, why does that provision apply, and what effect, if any, does Petitioner's prior release by immigration authorities have on that determination? 3. The Petition alleges that, after Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings in March 2019, immigration authorities released her on her own recognizance. Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 8. Do Respondents dispute that allegation? If not, do Respondents believe that there is any factual or legal basis to distinguish this case from the many prior cases in which district judges have addressed this issue?? See, e.g., Germinal v. Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, No. 1:26-cv-03776-MWJS; Fernandes Lima v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-03651-MWJS; De Leon Sales v. Warden, California City Corr. Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-02821-MWJS. Petitioner may file a reply on or before July 16, 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. Given the court's ongoing consideration of the Petition and Motion, 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 a 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: 07/13/2026)

Jul 13, 2026

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

#8

Aug 08, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#9

Aug 08, 2026

Judgment