Kawal Kawal v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAWAL KAWAL, Case No. 1:26-cv-04725-JLT-FJS-HC (A-241-305-954), Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE v.

ORDER TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., TRANSCRIPTS AND OTHER NECESSARY Respondents. DOCUMENTS Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition in which Petitioner challenges his re-detention based on section 1225(b)(2) and section 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(2), 1226(a). Petitioner further argues that his re-detention violates due process. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner states that he entered the United States on approximately April 4, 2023, and was “immediately released and relocated to [the] greater Fresno area.” (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Petitioner subsequently filed for asylum. (Id.) On May 31, 2026, Petitioner was re-detained without a hearing. (Id.) Plaintiff is scheduled for a master hearing before an immigration judge on July 8, 2026. See Department of Justice, Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited July 1, 2026). It is not clear from the face of the Petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,1 the court HEREBY ORDERS: 1. Within FOURTEEN (14) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE a RESPONSE to the Petition, including the construed due process claim regarding Petitioner’s re-detention and challenge to the statutory authority for Petitioner’s detention and addressing whether this case is distinguishable from recent analogous cases in which this court has granted habeas relief. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473– 74 (9th Cir. 1985) (court has discretion to fix time for filing a response).2 A response can be made by filing one of the following: A. An ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petition. If Respondent argues that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim, that argument shall be made in the ANSWER. But any argument based on procedural default must also be coupled with a response addressing the merits of the claim asserted. B. A MOTION TO DISMISS the Petition. 2. Within FOURTEEN (14) days after service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE all transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the Petition. See Rule 5(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The transcripts or other documents shall only be filed electronically and, to the extent practicable, provided in Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”) format. Respondent shall not file a hard copy of the transcripts or other documents unless 1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 2 See also Schwarz v. Meinberg, 478 F. App’x 394, 395 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting petitioner’s contention that district court erred by permitting a time limit exceeding the limits specified in l the court so orders. 3. If Respondent files an answer to the Petition, Petitioner MAY FILE a traverse within FOURTEEN (14) days of the date of service of Respondent’s answer. If no traverse is filed, the Petition and answer are deemed submitted at the expiration of the fourteen days. See Local Rule 230(I). 4. If Respondent files a motion to dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an opposition or statement of non-opposition within FOURTEEN (14) days of the date of service of Respondent’s motion. Any reply to an opposition to the motion to dismiss SHALL be filed within SEVEN (7) days after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF. The motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. Local Rule 230(1). The parties should consider these dates to be firm. If any party requires additional time, it should file a motion for amendment of the schedule before a deadline has passed and explain in detail why the party cannot comply with this schedule. Extensions of time will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 apply to this order. TIS SO ORDERED. 7 Paws duly 2.2020 UNITED STA se DGE