Felipe B.D. v. U.S. Attorney General, et al.

Opinion

FELIPE B.D.,1 Case No. 1:26-cv-05510-KES-EGC (HC) (A Number: 017-357-383) PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED Petitioner, v. (Doc. 1) U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Respondents. Felipe B.D. is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner states they have been continuously detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since December 3, 2025. Petitioner claims their detention has become unreasonably prolonged in violation of their due process rights. Because Petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violations are proved, Respondents ARE 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). In their response, Respondents are ORDERED to address if, and if so how, the issues presented in the present petition differ from those resolved in the Court’s prior orders. See, e.g., Ghiassi v. Murray, No. 1:26-CV-1179-JLT-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026); Vu v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01366-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2939179 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025); Nguyen v. 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits Petitioner’s full name, using only their first name and last initial, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United Warden, No. 2:25-CV-03297-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 72110 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026); Duong v. Charles, No. 1:25-CV-01375-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3055188 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2025). Respondents are also ORDERED to address Petitioner’s claim that his seven-month detention is 4] unconstitutionally indefinite. Respondents SHALL INCLUDE a copy of all relevant portions 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. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. The Response to the Order to Show Cause is due within TWENTY- ONE (21) days of the date of service of this order. 2. Petitioner may file a Traverse to the Response within SEVEN (7) 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. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Petitioner at their last known address as reflected on the docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. . Dated: _ July 17, 2026 Cx tin duc | □□□ (le UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE