(HC) Nguyen v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility 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
TUAN ANH NGUYEN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE
MCFARLAND DETENTION FACILITY,
et al.,
Respondents.
No. 2:25-cv-03297-KES-SKO (HC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
[THIRTY DAY DEADLINE]
Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging
his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
Petitioner is a citizen and national of Vietnam who entered the United States in 1979 as a
refugee. In 2000, Petitioner was ordered removed. Nevertheless, he was paroled into the country
because a functioning repatriation agreement did not exist at the time. He has a work permit and
has been maintaining his permit in compliance with federal immigration laws.
On an unspecified date approximately 30 days ago during a regularly scheduled ICE
check-in, Petitioner was taken into custody. He has remained in detention since that time.
Petitioner claims his detention is unconstitutional because there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. He further alleges ICE’s current
Case 2:25-cv-03297-SKO Document 4 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 2

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
procedures regarding removal to third countries violates the Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1231,
the Convention Against Torture, Implementing Regulations, and the Administrative Procedures
Act. He also alleges potential removal to a third country constitutes punishment in violation of the
Fifth and Eighth Amendments. He also alleges he was wrongly detained in violation of the
requirements in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13. He seeks immediate release from custody.
Because Petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violations are proved,
Respondent IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. Rule 4,
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see Rule 1(b), Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2). Respondent SHALL INCLUDE a copy of Petitioner’s Alien File
and any and all other documentation relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the
petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the event the Petitioner is
released from ICE custody during the pendency of this Petition, the parties SHALL notify the
Court by filing a Motion to Dismiss the Petition or other proper pleading.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be
granted. The Response to the Order to Show Cause is due within THIRTY (30)
days of the date of service of this order.
2. Petitioner may file a Traverse to the Response within THIRTY (30) days of the
date the Response to the Order to Show Cause is filed with the Court.
The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument
pursuant to Local Rule 230(h). As such, the matter will be taken under submission following the
filing of Petitioner’s Traverse or the expiration of the time for filing the Traverse. All other
briefing in this action is suspended.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-03297-SKO Document 4 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 2