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

Opinion

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