Jose Luis Estrada Sanchez v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01964
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LUIS ESTRADA SANCHEZ, No. 1:25-cv-01964-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 13 v. [30- DAY DEADLINE] 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his indefinite detention 18 by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 19 Petitioner states he has been continuously detained by ICE since approximately May of 20 2025. He contends that his detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) has exceeded the six- 21 month presumptive period set forth in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), that his continued 22 detention is no longer reasonable, that Respondent has been unable to effect his removal, that 23 there is no “significant likelihood” of such removal in the “reasonably foreseeable future,” and 24 therefore that his ongoing detention is indefinite and violates his substantive and procedural due 25 process rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States 26 Constitution. 27 // 28 1 Because Petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violations are proved, 2 Respondent IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. Rule 4, 3 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see Rule 1(b), Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 4 Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2). Respondent SHALL INCLUDE all documentation relevant to the 5 determination of the issues raised in the petition, including but not limited to, a copy of 6 Petitioner’s Alien File, or any relevant portions thereof. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 7 2254 Cases. In the event the Petitioner is released from ICE custody during the pendency of this 8 Petition, the parties SHALL notify the Court by filing a Motion to Dismiss the Petition or other 9 proper pleading. 10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be 12 granted. The Response to the Order to Show Cause is due within THIRTY (30) 13 days of the date of service of this order. 14 2. Petitioner may file a Traverse to the Response within THIRTY (30) days of the 15 date the Response to the Order to Show Cause is filed with the Court. 16 The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument 17 pursuant to Local Rule 230(h). As such, the matter will be taken under submission following the 18 filing of Petitioner’s Traverse or the expiration of the time for filing the Traverse. All other 19 briefing in this action is suspended. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

22 Dated: January 8, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23

24 25 26 27 28