Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-08107

#1

Oct 02, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden, California City Detention by Jean Wildophe Dieujuste. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

#2

Oct 02, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Jean Wildophe Dieujuste. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

#3

Oct 02, 2026

MOTION for APPOINTMENT of COUNSEL by Jean Wildophe Dieujuste. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

#4

Oct 06, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

#5

Oct 06, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Warden, California City Detention (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

Oct 06, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 06, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Immigration New Case Documents served on Jean Wildophe Dieujuste. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

#6

Oct 07, 2026

NOTICE of RELATED CASE(S) 1:26-cv-06729-TLN-SCR by Warden, California City Detention. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#7

Oct 07, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Anthony Andrews for Warden, California City Detention, attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT terminated (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#8

Oct 07, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/7/2026: In light of petitioner's pro se status and request for expedited relief in his 1 habeas petition, the court CONSTRUES the 1 habeas petition as including a motion for temporary restraining order. Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 1 motion for temporary restraining order, the court ORDERS that respondents shall not take any action to remove petitioner from the United States or to move petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (acknowledging the court's express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction). Given the exigent circumstances present, the court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending its forthcoming order resolving petitioner's pending 1 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, the court has conducted a preliminary review of the pending motion and petition for writ of habeas corpus and observes that this case may involve core issues that the undersigned has previously addressed in this context. Accordingly, the parties are advised that if the court concludes that petitioner is entitled to the relief that is requested in the pending motion, then the court will also rule on the merits of the underlying petition. 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."); Dzhabrailov v. Decker, No. 20-cv-03118-PMH, 2020 WL 2731966, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2020) (considering the merits of the habeas petition and motion for preliminary injunction simultaneously). Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance if they have not already done so. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 1 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Friday, 10/9/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Zurita Navarro v. Warden, Cent. Valley Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:26-cv-05661-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 2294963 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026); Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025); Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025); Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, Cal. City Corr. Ctr., 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026); Cardenas v. Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026); J.P.C. v. Chestnut, 1:26-cv-02108-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 788129 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. The court will construe failure to distinguish the above cited cases as a concession that the cases are not substantively distinguishable. If respondents oppose this court ruling on the underlying petition, then respondents are DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in their opposition. Respondents are further directed to include in their opposition the detention authority or authorities identified by or relied upon by the detaining agency at the time of detention as the basis for detention and verifying evidence of the same, which may consist of a declaration from a person with knowledge or documentation of any steps the detaining agency had taken to comply with the procedural requirements of that detention authority or authorities prior to judicial intervention. If respondents' counsel is not aware of the detention authority or authorities identified by the agency at the time of detention, they are directed to so state in their opposition. Respondents are also directed to clearly identify in their opposition the source of any other proposed detention authority, including, for instance, a recent review of the detention's factual circumstances by respondents' counsel. Where a detention authority is relied upon in any opposition filed without specifying its source, the court may presume, based on the court's discussions with respondents' counsel at hearings in prior similar cases, that it is based solely on counsel's recent review of the factual circumstances surrounding the petitioner's detention. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

Oct 07, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 8 Minute Order served on Jean Wildophe Dieujuste. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Oct 07, 2026

Minute Order

Oct 07, 2026

Service by Mail

#9

Oct 08, 2026

RELATED CASE MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/08/2026: In light of the Notice of Related Cases (ECF No. 6 ), the Court has examined Case No. 1:26-cv-06729-TLN-SCR and Case No. 1:26-cv-08107-DAD-SCR and finds them to be related, under Local Rule 123, because both cases involve the same petitioner, claims, and questions of fact or law. Assignment of the actions to the same District Judge and Magistrate Judge will promote convenience, efficiency, and economy for the Court and parties. Accordingly, the Court VACATES any deadlines in this action and ORDERS that Case No. 1:26-cv-08107-DAD-SCR be reassigned to Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley and Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan. All future filings shall use the following Case Number: 1:26-cv-08107-TLN-SCR. Further, this matter is REFERRED to the assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge for further proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

Oct 08, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Minute Order served on Jean Wildophe Dieujuste. (Deputy Clerk RAA)

Oct 08, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 08, 2026

Minute Order AND Order Reassigning Case

#10

Oct 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 10/15/2026 GRANTING 2 Motion for IFP, DEFERRING the ruling on 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and DIRECTING Respondent to SHOW CAUSE within 7 days why the Writ should not be granted by filing an answer. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Respondent shall address the government's basis for continuing to detain Petitioner beyond the 90-day removal period. Absent a further order of the court, the petition will be taken under submission after the filing of the answer. The parties shall inform the court as expeditiously as possible in the event that petitioner obtains an immigration bond and it is paid resulting in release or that a travel document is obtained for petitioner that will result in imminent removal from this country. Either party shall update the court by filing a Notice of Changed Circumstances that informs the court of the circumstances that have changed. Parties must review this MINUTE ORDER Document which is a scheduling order. [See attached for details.] (Deputy Clerk SH) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

Oct 15, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 15, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Minute Order served on Jean Wildophe Dieujuste. (Deputy Clerk SH)

#12

Oct 22, 2026

Extension of Time

Oct 23, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 23, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Oct 28, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Oct 28, 2026

Service by Mail

Oct 29, 2026

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