Gerson Omar Carranza-Guerrero v. Minga Wofford, Facility Administrator of Mesa Verde Detention Center; Sergio Albarran, Field Officer Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States, acting in their official capacities

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERSON OMAR CARRANZA- Case No. 1:26-cv-03501 (VC) GUERRERO, ORDER RE MOTION FOR Petitioner, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PETITION FOR WRIT v. OF HABEAS CORPUS

MINGA WOFFORD, Facility Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2 Administrator of Mesa Verde Detention Center; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Field Officer Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United States, acting in their official capacities, Respondents.

The Court is in receipt of Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). The Court intends to rule directly on the Petition, with the understanding that the Court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the TRO. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) (“Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner’s habeas petition] as law and justice require.”); Dzhabrailov v. Decker, No. 20-cv-03118-PMH, 2020 WL 2731966, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2020) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file a response to the Petition within three (3) calendar days from the date of this Order. Any response must include the Petitioner’s full Form I-213, any orders of release or detention, any custody warrants or notices, and any other portions of Petitioner’s A-File relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the Petition. Failure to timely respond shall be construed as a non- opposition. See L.R. 230(c). Petitioner may file a reply within five (5) calendar days of this Order. Respondents are prohibited from deporting the Petitioner or removing him from the Eastern District of California while the TRO and Petition are pending. This matter is not set for a hearing though the Court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2026 Ko“. VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge