Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06976

#1

Sep 01, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Immigration Processing Center by Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

#2

Sep 01, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

#3

Sep 02, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

#4

Sep 02, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Warden, California City Immigration Processing Center (Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

Sep 02, 2026

RECEIPT number 2000020814 for $5.00 from Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

Sep 02, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 02, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Immigration New Case Documents served on Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

#5

Sep 03, 2026

EO: This case was initiated by the same Petitioner who filed an earlier habeas petition in No. 1:26-cv-04683-MWJS. Pursuant to Local Rule 190(d), the court ORDERS reassignment of case No. 1:26-cv-06976-DC-AC to U.S District Judge Micah W. J. Smith. All future filings shall reflect this reassignment. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#6

Sep 03, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE REASSIGNING CASE. This case has been assigned to District Judge Micah W. J. Smith. The new case number is: 1:26-cv-06976-MWJS. (Deputy Clerk AB) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

Sep 03, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Sep 04, 2026

EO: The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. No. 1, and application for temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 2 . The court intends to rule directly on the petition. It is not clear from the face of the petition, however, whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. Accordingly, under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases--which the court applies to this Section 2241 habeas petition, as authorized by Rule 1(b)--the court orders the following: 1. Within seven days of the date of service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to the petition. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. A response can be made by filing (a) AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the petition. Any argument by Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE MADE in the ANSWER but must also address the merits of the claim asserted. Alternatively, a response can be made by filing (b) A MOTION TO DISMISS the petition. 2. Within seven days after service of this order, Respondent also SHALL FILE any and all transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the petition. See Rule 5(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The transcripts or other documents shall only be filed electronically and, to the extent practicable, provided in Optical Character Recognition ("OCR") format. Respondent shall not file a hard copy of the transcripts or other documents unless so ordered by this court. 3. If Respondent files an answer to the petition, Petitioner MAY FILE a traverse within seven days of the service of Respondent's answer. If no traverse is filed, the petition and answer are deemed submitted at the expiration of the seven days. 4. If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an opposition or statement of non-opposition within seven days of the date of service of Respondent's motion. Any reply to an opposition to the motion to dismiss SHALL be filed within seven days after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF. The motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. 5. Any motion shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. These deadlines should be considered as firm by all parties. If any party requires additional time, that party should file a motion for amendment of the schedule before a deadline has passed and explain in detail why the party cannot comply with this schedule. Extensions of time will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order. 6. Pending the court's decision on the petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondent 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"). 7. Considering the briefing schedule and status quo order set forth above, Petitioner's application for temporary restraining order is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

Sep 04, 2026

Minute Order

Sep 04, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 04, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 7 Entering Order, was served on Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk AB)

#8

Sep 11, 2026

REPLY by Warden, California City Immigration Processing Center re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Attachments: # 1 NTA, # 2 IJ Removal Order, # 3 IJ Bond Denial, # 4 Appeal Receipt, # 5 Appeal, # 6 RAP Sheet, # 7 I-213)(Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#9

Sep 18, 2026

BRIEF in support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk KEZ) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#10

Sep 21, 2026

ORDER DISMISSING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE signed by Judge Micah W. J. Smith on 9/21/2026. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AB) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#11

Sep 21, 2026

JUDGMENT dated *9/21/2026* pursuant to Dkt. No. 10 Order signed by District Judge Micah W. J. Smith on 9/21/2026. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AB) (Entered: 09/21/2026)

Sep 21, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 10 Order, and Dkt. No. 11 Judgment, was served on Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk AB)

Sep 21, 2026

Service by Mail

#12

Sep 30, 2026

MOTION to ALTER/AMEND the JUDGMENT, for RECONSIDERATION and to REOPEN CASE by Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk KEZ) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#13

Oct 01, 2026

EO: Before the court is Petitioner's combined motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), application for reconsideration under Local Rule 230(j), and request to reopen case. Dkt. No. 12 ."A Rule 59(e) motion is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kaufmann v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 850 (9th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). The court "may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Id. (cleaned up). Petitioner does not rely on newly discovered evidence or a change in controlling law, so the only issue is whether the court committed clear error in dismissing the petition without prejudice.In this action, Petitioner sought immediate release, asserting an "as-applied challenge to the . . . continuation of [his] physical custody." Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 2. In making this argument, Petitioner highlighted that he had been detained for eighty days, he was ordered removed seven days after a master calendar hearing, and he had taken "concrete steps" to appeal his removal order. Id.As the court explained in dismissing the petition without prejudice, Dkt. No. 10, detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is "limited to the period reasonably necessary to bring about an alien's removal." Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1063 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition to noting that Petitioner has been detained for less than six months, the court also concluded that Petitioner had not shown that his current detention is indefinite. In reaching this conclusion, the court did not clearly err in highlighting the relatively short duration of Petitioner's detention. See, e.g., Garcia Vasquez v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-07187-JLT-SAB, 2026 WL 2938796, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2026) ("Petitioner's current detention is presumptively reasonable because he has only been detained for two months."); Lara Bolis v. Warden, Golden State Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-04618-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 2295687, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026) ("The Court declines to reach petitioner's remaining habeas corpus claim asserting that his ongoing detention violates due process where it has reached five months.").Given the foregoing, Petitioner's motion to alter amend judgment, his application for reconsideration, and his request to reopen are DENIED. Petitioner is reminded that the court dismissed his petition without prejudice, so he is allowed to file another petition if, at some point, he can show that his detention is no longer reasonably necessary to bring about his removal. IT IS SO ORDERED.(JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: A copy of Dkt. No. 13 Entering Order, was served on Andres Brito Ortiz. (Deputy Clerk AB)

Oct 01, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 01, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Amend the Judgment

#14

Oct 15, 2026

NOTICE of RELATED CASE(S) 1:26-CV-06976-MWJS, 1:26-CV-08314-DAD-JDP, 1:26-CV-04683-MWJS by Warden, California City Immigration Processing Center. Attorney Oh, Edward added. (Oh, Edward) (Entered: 10/15/2026)