Elvis Jose Pimentel Ortega v. Warden of the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01856
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELVIS JOSE PIMENTEL ORTEGA, No. 1:25-cv-01856-DAD-CSK 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER PRESERVING THE COURT’S JURISDICTION AND SETTING BRIEFING 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE SCHEDULE FOR PETITIONER’S MOTION ANNEX ICE DETENTION FACILITY, et FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 15 al., ORDER 16 Respondents. (Doc. No. 20) 17 18 19 On December 15, 2025, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus challenging the lawfulness of his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 21 (Doc. No. 1.) On January 2, 2026, respondents moved to dismiss the petition. (Doc. No. 7.) On 22 January 30, 2026, respondents filed supplemental briefing in which they argued that petitioner 23 had recently voluntarily consented to his removal from the United States and that he was 24 scheduled for removal on February 12, 2026. (Doc. No. 15.) On February 10, 2026, however, 25 petitioner filed a notice with the court of having signed the voluntary departure paperwork under 26 duress. (Doc. No. 20.) 27 The court will construe petitioner’s notice as a motion for a temporary restraining order. 28 Pending the issuance of the court’s order resolving that motion for temporary restraining order, 1 | and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court will order that respondents shall not take 2 | any action to remove petitioner from the United States or to transfer petitioner out of the Eastern 3 | District of California. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (acknowledging 4 | the court’s express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may 5 || be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction); see also Cruz Garcia v. Hermosillo, No. 2:26-cv- 6 | 00184-TMC, 2026 WL 183571 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2026) (enjoining the petitioner’s transfer 7 || outside the district and his removal from the United States pending resolution of petitioner’s 8 | claim that his voluntary departure notice was signed under duress). Given the exigent 9 | circumstances presented here, the court finds that the issuance of this order is warranted in order 10 | to maintain the status quo pending its resolution of petitioner’s pending motion for temporary 11 | restraining order. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending motion for temporary 12 | restraining order no later than Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 5:00 PM. 13 For the reasons stated above: 14 1. Respondents are ORDERED not to take action to transfer petitioner out of the 15 Eastern District of California or to remove petitioner from the United States until 16 further order of the court; and 17 2. Respondents are DIRECTED to file their opposition to petitioner’s motion for a 18 temporary restraining (Doc. No. 20) no later than Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 19 5:00 PM. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. *" | Dated: _ February 13, 2026 Da A. 2, axel 22 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28