Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06220

#1

Aug 05, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Moises Becerra, Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin by Jose Manuel Feria Lopez. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13689565) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#2

Aug 05, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Manuel Feria Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 TROchecklist, # 6 Tro Proposed Order, # 7 Pi proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#3

Aug 05, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk LJB) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#4

Aug 05, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Moises Becerra,Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin (Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#5

Aug 05, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Pending the court'sdecision on the Petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner out of this District. 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"). The Petition and Motion appear to present issues recently resolved by the Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, --- F. 4th ----, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. 2026). Given the substantial percolation of these issues, the court intends to rule directly 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 August 7, 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 the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez and justify denying the Petition, or indicate this matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a reply on or before August 10, 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) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

Aug 05, 2026

Minute Order