Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-07829

(HC) Ramos Escobar v. Warden, California City Detention Center

Active

Case Information

Filed: September 24, 2026
Assigned to: Dena M. Coggins
Referred to: Allison Claire
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee
Active
Last Activity: October 08, 2026
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#1
Sep 24, 2026
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Detention Center by Ovidio Ramos Escobar. (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/28/2026)
Main Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Sep 24, 2026
RECEIPT number 100009770 for $5.00 for Ovidio Ramos Escobar from Cal City Immigration Processing. (Deputy Clerk DAR)
#2
Sep 28, 2026
IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Deputy Clerk DAR) (Entered: 09/28/2026)
Main Document: Immigration New Case Documents
#3
Sep 28, 2026
DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Anthony Andrews for Warden, California City Detention Center (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 09/28/2026)
Main Document: DESIGNATION
Sep 28, 2026
Service by Mail
Sep 28, 2026
SERVICE BY MAIL: 2 Immigration New Case Documents served on Ovidio Ramos Escobar. (Deputy Clerk DAR)
#4
Oct 01, 2026
MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/01/2026. Petitioner, Ovidio Ramos Escobar (A# 206-099-380), a self-represented immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with the filing fee. The petition asserts petitioner's detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. ECF No. 1. The Ninth Circuit recently held that "[noncitizens] present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A)." Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No 25-6842, 183 F.4th 1160, 1164, 1172 (9th Cir. 2026). This court has also previously addressed the statutory issue in Acevedo Duran v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01108 DC CSK, Doc. No. 11 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026), Zuniga Cruz v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01818 DC EFB, 2026 WL 890471 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2026), Calle-Brito v. Santacruz, No. 1:26-cv-02355 DC DMC, 2026 WL 1482712, Doc. Nos. 1, 14 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2026), and other similar cases. This court has also previously addressed petitioner's due process claim in Ramirez Godinez v. Warden of California City Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-5584 DC AC, 2026 WL 2455251 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2026), findings and recommendations adopted, 2026 WL 2494928 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2026), Garcia Flores v. Warden, Mesa Verde Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-5387 DC AC, 2026 WL 2494915 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2026), findings and recommendations adopted, 2026 WL 2594117 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2026), and other similar cases. Respondent is therefore directed to file a response within 7 days from the date of this order, which shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues that materially distinguish this case from Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock and the court's prior orders in the above-cited cases and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The court will construe failure to distinguish the above cited cases as a concession that the cases are not substantively distinguishable. The response shall include petitioner's Form I-213 for each immigration encounter, any orders of release or detention, any custody warrants, notices, or decisions, any Notices to Appear, and if respondent disputes any factual representations in the operative petition, any and all documents necessary to support their view of the facts. Petitioner's reply, if any, is due within 7 days of being served a copy of the respondent's response. Respondent shall NOT TRANSFER petitioner outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions...."); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that federal courts have the power to "to preserve the court's jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency's action"). This order does not prohibit the temporary transfer of petitioner outside of the District for urgent medical care, though petitioner shall be returned to the District upon the conclusion of such care. As soon as practicable, respondent shall notify the court of any such transfer. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 10/01/2026)
Oct 01, 2026
SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Ovidio Ramos Escobar. (Deputy Clerk JAA)
Oct 01, 2026
Minute Order
Oct 01, 2026
Service by Mail
#5
Oct 08, 2026
MOTION to DISMISS; ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Warden, California City Detention Center. (Andrews, Anthony) Modified on 10/16/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 10/08/2026)
Main Document: Dismiss