Resul Duzenli v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RESUL DUZENLI, No. 1:26-cv-0014 WBS AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding through counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 19 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief 20 if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to show 21 cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Respondent is directed to file an answer/return within 14 days from the date of this 24 order. If an answer/return is filed, respondent shall include with the answer/return any and all 25 transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the 26 application. 27 2. Petitioner’s reply/traverse, if any, is due within 7 days after being served a copy of 28 respondent’s answer/return. 1 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of 2 || petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the United 3 |} States Attorney. 4 4. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, 5 || respondent shall not transfer petitioner outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the 6 || court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal 7 || courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions □ □ . .”); 8 | see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that federal courts 9 || have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction 10 || pending review of an agency’s action”’). 11 | DATED: January 5, 2026 ~ 12 Chee ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Resul Duzenli v. Christopher Chestnut, et al. (Resul Duzenli v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.