Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-07199

#1

Sep 08, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Tonya Andrews by Michael Herrera Nunez. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#2

Sep 08, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Michael Herrera Nunez. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#3

Sep 08, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Michael Herrera Nunez. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#4

Sep 08, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Michael Herrera Nunez. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#5

Sep 09, 2026

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

#6

Sep 09, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Quinn Disparte, GOVT for Tonya Andrews (Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

Sep 09, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 09, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Immigration New Case Documents served on Michael Herrera Nunez. (Deputy Clerk DAR)

#7

Sep 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/10/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. From these filings, it is unclear whether Petitioner has previously been released from immigration custody, or whether the challenged detention is Petitioner's first contact with immigration authorities. Noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). This court has previously addressed claims where noncitizens were re-detained after being released from immigration custody (see, e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025); Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025); D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026)), and where noncitizens were detained by immigration authorities for the first time after having lived in the United States for an extended period of time (See e.g., Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026); Barajas Ortiz v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01167-DC-SCR, 2026 WL 508419 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026)). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 9/14/2026. In their response, Respondents shall indicate whether Petitioner has previously been granted parole or otherwise released from immigration custody, and shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Rodriguez Vazquez and this court's applicable orders cited above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 9/28/2026. Finally, the court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); see also 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."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Both parties shall address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

Sep 10, 2026

Service by Mail

Sep 10, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

Sep 10, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 7, served on Michael Herrera Nunez. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS)

#8

Sep 14, 2026

OPPOSITION by Tonya Andrews to 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 I-213, # 2 NTA, # 3 Criminal History Documents)(Disparte, Quinn) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#9

Sep 25, 2026

REQUEST for RELIEF by Michael Herrera Nunez. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#10

Sep 25, 2026

CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#11

Sep 28, 2026

EXHIBIT by Michael Herrera Nunez. (Deputy Clerk AMW) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#12

Oct 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 10/1/2026: In Respondents' 8 Opposition to Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents distinguish Petitioner's claim from those cited in the court's 7 Order by emphasizing that Petitioner was (1) detained upon his reentry to the United States such that he was not detained in the interior of the United States and is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); or (2) in the alternative, Petitioner's detention is mandatory pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(A) due to his conviction for possession of cocaine. Respondents attach a [8-3] Judgment from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County confirming that conviction. On 9/25/2026, Petitioner filed a 9 Request for Relief, which the court construes as a Reply in support of his 3 Motion, in which he concedes that the allegations in Respondents' 8 Opposition are accurate, but discusses the changes made in his life since his drug conviction. To the extent Petitioner believes his conviction does not subject him to mandatory detention or wishes to present mitigating evidence against his current detention, he must raise that issue in a Joseph hearing before an Immigration Judge before seeking habeas relief. Ronil R.C. v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Center, No. 1:26-cv-03612-MWJS, 2026 WL 1505926, at *1 n.2 (citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 514 (2003)). Accordingly, the court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his current detention violates his constitutional or statutory rights. Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Petitioner's 9 Request for Relief is DENIED as having been rendered moot by this Order. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

Oct 01, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 12, served on Michael Herrera Nunez. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS)

Oct 01, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 01, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Request AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

Oct 30, 2026

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

Oct 30, 2026

Service by Mail