Lino Eliezer Sanchez Ramirez v. Kristi Noem, et al.

E.D. California

Lino Eliezer Sanchez Ramirez v. Kristi Noem, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 10, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-01270·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. 1:26-cv-01270-DAD-EFB (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Respondents. Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has paid the filing fee. The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. //// ////

1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions including § 2241 petitions. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the United States Attorney. 2. Respondents’ answer/response to the § 2241 petition is due no later than 7 days from the date of this order. 3. Petitioner’s reply is due 4 days after being served with the answer. 4. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, respondents shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions….”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency’s action”). DATED: March 10, 2026

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. 1:26-cv-01270-DAD-EFB (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Respondents. Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has paid the filing fee. The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be served with the § 2241 petition and directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. //// ////

1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions including § 2241 petitions. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the United States Attorney. 2. Respondents’ answer/response to the § 2241 petition is due no later than 7 days from the date of this order. 3. Petitioner’s reply is due 4 days after being served with the answer. 4. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, respondents shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions….”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency’s action”). DATED: March 10, 2026

Lino Eliezer Sanchez Ramirez v. Kristi Noem, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Lino Eliezer Sanchez Ramirez v. Kristi Noem, et al. (Lino Eliezer Sanchez Ramirez v. Kristi Noem, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related