Howar Jose Navarro Inciarta v. Christopher Chestnut

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 HOWAR JOSE NAVARRO INCIARTA, Case No. 1:26-cv-01360-JLT-SAB-HC

11 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 12 v. 13 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 On March 12, 2026, Respondent filed a response to the petition, which states in pertinent 19 part: 20 In the pleading, Petitioner principally argues he should not be detained because he has Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). See id. at 6-7. Petitioner does not 21 otherwise make any claim that his detention is unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. Notably, Petitioner has presented no evidence that he was ever granted 22 TPS. However, government records indicated that Petitioner never had TPS. As such, Petitioner has not stated a claim for habeas relief. Accordingly, the Petition 23 must be denied. 24 (ECF No. 9 at 1.1) 25 Although Respondent asserts that Petitioner only raises a claim based on TPS and “does 26 not otherwise make any claim that his detention is unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful,” (ECF 27 No. 9 at 1), the petition alleges that Petitioner has been detained since October 15, 2025, and has 1 | not been to court in that time and that Petitioner always attended his ICE appointments and was 2 | arrested unfairly. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) 3 “We are specifically directed to ‘construe pro se pleadings liberally.” This duty applies 4 | equally to pro se motions and with special force to filings from pro se inmates.” United States v. 5 | Qazi, 975 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and footnote omitted). Accordingly, 6 | the Court construes the petition as raising claims challenging Petitioner’s re-detention, the 7 | statutory authority of Petitioner’s detention, and Petitioner’s continued detention without a bond 8 | hearing. Further, the Court finds that supplemental briefing addressing the petition’s allegations 9 | and the construed claims will be helpful to the Court. 10 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 11 1. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent SHALL 12 FILE a supplemental response addressing the issues set forth above; and 13 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of Respondent’s supplemental response, 14 Petitioner MAY FILE a traverse. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 17 | Dated: _ March 16, 2026 : STANLEY A. BOONE 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28