Esdras Navarro Andreas v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Opinion

ESDRAS NAVARRO ANDREAS, No. 1:26-cv-00166-JLT-CDB (HC) Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PETITION v. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., 30-DAY DEADLINE Respondents. Petitioner Esdras Navarro Arenas (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee proceeding by counsel, initiated this action by filing a complaint and petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a contemporaneously-filed motion for temporary restraining order. (Docs. 1, 2). On January 11, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant petition while in custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the California City Detention Facility in California City. See (Doc. 1 ¶ 6). The presiding district judge has set a briefing schedule on Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order. (Docs. 2, 5). Preliminary Screening Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner alleges his re-arrest and re-detention without a custody determination hearing violates his constitutional and statutory rights. (Doc. 1 ¶ 1). It appears from the allegations that after he was released from his initial immigration detention with parole valid through November 6, 2024, he was placed on the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (“ISAP”), was required to complete periodic check-ins with ISAP monitors, was instructed to report for in-person check-ins with ICE, and on December 3, 2025, was placed on an electronic ankle monitor before the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a warrant for his arrest as an alien pursuant to INA § 236 and took Petitioner into custody that same day. Id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 35-39. Petitioner alleges that he immediately reported to the ICE office in San Francisco where he was accused of missing six reports despite his explanation that he had missed only one report on November 28, 2025, due to a malfunction with his phone. Id. ¶ 40. The Court preliminarily concludes that Petitioner’s petition may be cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition, because Petitioner was incarcerated in Respondents’ custody within the Eastern District of California at the time of filing, this Court has jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the petition. Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Federal courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241); see, e.g., Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197-99 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding that the Eastern District of California exercises jurisdiction over core habeas corpus petitions filed by petitioners confined at a facility located within this district). Conclusion and Order Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Respondents SHALL FILE a response addressing the merits or seeking dismissal of the Petition within 30 days of the date of service of this order. Respondents shall include with the response any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the resolution of the issues presented in the petition. Habeas Rule 5. /// /// 2. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE to any Answer or OPPOSTION to any Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents is due on or before 30 days from the date of Respondents’ filing. Any motion to dismiss shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Local Rule 230(g). All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this Order. IT IS SOORDERED. | Dated: _ January 13, 2026 | hr bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE