Central District of California • 5:26-cv-05788

#1

Sep 28, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In Federal Custody (28:2241). (Filing fee $ 5 PAID), filed by petitioner Sergio Pilar Loza Napoles. (jp) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#2

Sep 28, 2026

REQUEST for Appointment of Counsel filed by petitioner Sergio Pilar Loza Napoles. (jp) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#3

Sep 28, 2026

CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Petitioner Sergio Pilar Loza Napoles. (jp) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#4

Sep 30, 2026

The Petitioner has voluntarily consented to have a Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of judgment. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#5

Sep 30, 2026

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts. (jp) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#6

Sep 30, 2026

Notice of General Order 26-05 and Briefing Schedule. (jp) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#7

Sep 30, 2026

NOTICE OF RESOURCES FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS. (jp) (Entered: 09/30/2026)

Sep 30, 2026

2241 Initial Case Assignment Consent or Declination

#8

Oct 01, 2026

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REFERRING CASE TO THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 2 by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts. Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and requests appointment of counsel. See Doc. No. 2 . Here, the Weygandt factors sufficiently support the appointment of counsel to represent Petitioner. The office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California ("FPD") has indicated that it will review requests for appointment of counsel to represent pro se petitioners in immigration-related habeas corpus proceedings such as this one. Accordingly, the Court REFERS this case to the FPD for consideration of appointment of counsel for Petitioner. The FPD is ORDERED to file a response within seven days of this order, indicating whether the FPD will represent Petitioner in this matter, decline representation in this matter, or recommend appointment of CJA counsel. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the FPD. IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS.) (lkr) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#9

Oct 03, 2026

This action has been fully consented to according to General Order 26-05. The case will proceed before a magistrate judge. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lkr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/06/2026)

Oct 06, 2026

Immigration 2241 Full Consent

#10

Oct 07, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Julian Lee counsel for Respondent James Janecka. Adding Julian T. Lee as counsel of record for Respondent for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Respondent James Janecka. (Attorney Julian Lee added to party James Janecka(pty:res))(Lee, Julian) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#11

Oct 07, 2026

RESPONSE filed by Respondent James Janeckato PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In Federal Custody (28:2241) (Filing fee $ 5) 1 - RESPONDENTS ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Lee, Julian) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#12

Oct 15, 2026

Notice Notice re Appointment of Counsel filed by Non-Party Federal Public Defender. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rivera, Gabriela) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#13

Oct 16, 2026

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts 2 . There is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the Weygandt factors sufficiently support the appointment of counsel to represent Petitioner. Therefore, pursuant to the Court's order referring this case to Office of the Federal Public Defender ("FPDO") for the consideration of appointment of counsel (Dkt. 18), and the FPDO's subsequent Notice Re: Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 21), the Court appoints the following attorney to represent Petitioner in this immigration habeas case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (authorizing appointment for persons seeking relief under section 2241). Sean Richard Olender (Bar No. 196226). This appointment order shall issue nunc pro tunc to the date of the FPDO's Notice Re: Appointment of Counsel, October 14, 2026. Counsel shall file a notice of appearance in this case by no later than October 20, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (lkr) (Entered: 10/16/2026)

#14

Oct 16, 2026

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Sean Olender counsel for Petitioner Sergio Pilar Loza Napoles. Adding Sean Olender as counsel of record for Sergio Pilar Loza Napoles for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Petitioner Sergio Pilar Loza Napoles. (Attorney Sean Olender added to party Sergio Pilar Loza Napoles(pty:pet))(Olender, Sean) (Entered: 10/16/2026)

#15

Oct 21, 2026

Reply (Motion related)

#16

Oct 23, 2026

Response

#17

Oct 23, 2026

Amended Document (Non-Motion)

#18

Oct 26, 2026

Order Requiring Return/Answer to Petition

#19

Nov 04, 2026

Notice (Other)

#20

Nov 05, 2026

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO COURT ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Magistrate Judge Daniel S. Roberts. To date, Respondents have not filed an Answer to the Amended Petition. As s uch, they have defaulted on their obligation to "show cause why the writ should not be granted" and to "certify the true cause of the detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Given Respondents filed an Answer to the original Petition (s ee Doc. No. 11), however, it appears that the failure of Respondents to file an Answer to the Amended Petition may have been inadvertent rather than a conscious decision to not oppose the Amended Petition. Thus, Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2026, why they have failed to comply with the Court's Order requiring them to file an Answer to the Amended Pettion and show cause why the habeas petition should not be granted. Responden ts may do so either by filing the Answer to the Amended Petition in which they address ALL claims and bases alleged in the Amended Petition or by filing a sworn Declaration showing good cause for their failure to comply with the Court's Octobe r 26th Order and a commitment to the date by which they will file an Answer to the Amended Petition. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS ORDER WILL BE TREATED AS A CONCESSION THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE AMENDED PETITION, INCLUDING HIS RELEASE FROM RESPONDENTS' CUSTODY ON REASONABLE CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION. If Respondents timely file an Answer to the Amended Petition, Petitioner may file a Reply thereto within three days of service of that Answer, after which the case will be taken under submission for decision without oral argument, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (lkr)

#21

Nov 06, 2026

Response

#22

Nov 07, 2026

Traverse