(HC) Jaimes v. Chestnut et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PEDRO SAUCEDO JAIMES,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:26-cv-07819-DC-AC (HC)
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(Doc. Nos. 1, 7)
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order
(Doc. No. 7), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his ongoing immigration detention. (Doc. No. 1.)
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). Further, this court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the
petition. (Doc. No. 1 at 7–9.) Specifically, this court has found that a noncitizen who has lived in
the United States for an extended period of time without having been admitted is subject to
discretionary detention during removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled
to a pre-deprivation bond hearing under that section. See Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-
01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (granting injunctive relief of
Case 1:26-cv-07819-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
immediate release for noncitizen who was detained by U.S. immigration authorities after living in
the United States for over twenty years); Barajas Ortiz v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01167-DC-SCR,
2026 WL 508419 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who had lived in United States
for over 30 years); Acevedo Duran v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01108-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 539409
(E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who had lived in United States for approximately
2–3 years); Zuniga Cruz v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01818-DC-EFB, 2026 WL 890471 (E.D. Cal.
Mar. 31, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition as to the
petitioner’s Immigration and Nationality Act claim where the petitioner lived in the United States
for eight years before his detention); Mendez Juarez v. Warden, Mesa Verde Detention Center,
No. 1:26-cv-02045-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 1131003 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2026) (same as to noncitizen
who lived in United States for approximately four years); Calle-Brito v. Santacruz, No. 1:26-cv-
02355-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 1482712 (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who resided
in United States for approximately 3.5 years); Jimenez Orellana v. Johnson, 1:26-cv-02960-DJC-
SCR, 2026 WL 1134641 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who resided in United
States for approximately 1–2 years); Rauda Molina v. Chestnut, 1:26-cv-01644-DJC-JDP, 2026
WL 640924 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026) (same as to noncitizen who resided in United States for
approximately two years).
On October 5, 2026, the court issued an order informing the parties that it was considering
ruling directly on the petition and asking both parties whether they oppose simultaneous
resolution of the motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition. (Doc. No. 8.) The
court also directed Respondents to address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this
case that materially distinguish it from this court’s prior orders in Alvarez Maciel and Barajas
Ortiz. (Id.)
On October 7, 2026, Respondents filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion for temporary
restraining order in which they oppose Petitioner’s motion on the same grounds as those
addressed by the court in the aforementioned cases and emphasize that they “maintain that 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs here,” but do not identify any significant factual or legal issues in
this case that materially distinguish it from Alvarez Maciel and Barajas Ortiz. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.)
Case 1:26-cv-07819-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Respondents further indicate that they do not oppose the court ruling directly on the petition, and
although they state such non-opposition is based upon the limited relief of a bond hearing, they do
not provide any basis for opposing release as a remedy. (Id.) On October 8, 2026, Petitioner filed
a reply indicating that he likewise does not oppose the court ruling on the petition. (Doc. No. 10
at 6.)
Because Respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any
factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the court’s aforementioned prior
decisions, the court will grant Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7)
and petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) as to Count One for the reasons set forth in the
court’s order in Zuniga Cruz.1 Further, as the court found in Zuniga Cruz, the proper remedy for
Respondent’s failure to provide Petitioner with a statutorily compliant bond hearing is
Petitioner’s immediate release. Zuniga Cruz, 2026 WL 890471, at *4.
Accordingly,
1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) and motion for a
temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7) are GRANTED as follows:
a. Petitioner Pedro Saucedo Jaimes (A- 234-600-862) shall be released
immediately from Respondents’ custody. Respondents shall not impose
any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that
is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing;
b. Respondents shall RETURN all of Petitioner’s documents and possessions
(e.g., identification, passport, work permit, Social Security card, etc.) upon
his release from custody;
1 Because the court is granting the petition on the statutory claim (Count One), the court need not
address any additional grounds raised in the petition. See N.K. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00292-KES-
SAB (HC), 2026 WL 130345, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (granting habeas petition as to the
second count of the petition and not addressing other counts because the petitioner was entitled to
the relief sought based on the court’s ruling as to that second count); Constantinovici v. Bondi,
806 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1166 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) (granting habeas petition based on due
process claim and “declin[ing] to address the remaining grounds in the Petition for seeking
release”).
Case 1:26-cv-07819-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
c. Within three (3) days from the date of entry of this order, Respondents
shall FILE a notice of compliance with this court confirming that Petitioner
has been released in accordance with the above;
d. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, they shall provide him with
a bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(c)(8) at which Petitioner shall
bear the burden of showing that he is not a flight risk or a risk to
community safety; and
e. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may
detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable
final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of
removal;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the California
City Detention Facility; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026	___________________________
Dena Coggins
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-07819-DC-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 4