Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Warden of the Golden State McFarland Detention Facility, et al.

E.D. California

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Warden of the Golden State McFarland Detention Facility, et al.

DecidedMarch 17, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-03297

StatusUnknown

This text of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Warden of the Golden State McFarland Detention Facility, et al. (Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Warden of the Golden State McFarland Detention Facility, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Warden of the Golden State McFarland Detention Facility, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 TUAN ANH NGUYEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-03297-SKO (HC)

10 Petitioner, O SA R N D C E T R I O TO NS S S H H O O W U C LD A U N S O E T W B H E Y IM POSED 11 FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER v. 12 [DEADLINE: MARCH 22, 2026] 13 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE MCFARLAND DETENTION FACILITY, et 14 al.,

15 Respondents. _____________________________________/ 16

17 Petitioner Tuan Anh Nguyen is an immigration detainee proceeding with counsel with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). 19 On January 9, 2026, the Court issued an order granting the petition. (Doc. 20.) Per the 20 Court’s order, Respondents were directed to release Petitioner and return him to the “last 21 uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy[.]” GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney, 22 Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir, 2000) (quoting Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 23 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1963)); see Ariz. Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1061 24 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the ‘status quo’ refers to the legally relevant relationship between the parties 25 before the controversy arose”) (citing McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1020 (9th Cir. 26 2012)). 27 Here, the last uncontested status of Petitioner was before he was re-detained on October 28 13, 2025. See Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-05632-RMI-RFL, 2025 WL 1853763, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 1 Jul. 4, 2025) (finding that the “moment prior to the Petitioner’s likely illegal detention” is the status 2 quo). Petitioner had been on supervised release for over twenty years until he was re-detained by 3 the government. Petitioner states that during that time prior to his re-detainment, he was required 4 to report once per year, and he was not required to wear a monitoring device. Respondents were 5 ordered to return Petitioner to the status quo prior to re-detainment. When Respondents released 6 Petitioner from custody, however, he was required to report every two months, and has been 7 required to wear an ankle monitoring device. (Doc. 23 at 2.) 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, on or before March 22, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW 10 CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for violating the Court’s order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: March 17, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 TUAN ANH NGUYEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-03297-SKO (HC)

10 Petitioner, O SA R N D C E T R I O TO NS S S H H O O W U C LD A U N S O E T W B H E Y IM POSED 11 FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER v. 12 [DEADLINE: MARCH 22, 2026] 13 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE MCFARLAND DETENTION FACILITY, et 14 al.,

15 Respondents. _____________________________________/ 16

17 Petitioner Tuan Anh Nguyen is an immigration detainee proceeding with counsel with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). 19 On January 9, 2026, the Court issued an order granting the petition. (Doc. 20.) Per the 20 Court’s order, Respondents were directed to release Petitioner and return him to the “last 21 uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy[.]” GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney, 22 Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir, 2000) (quoting Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 23 F.2d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1963)); see Ariz. Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1061 24 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the ‘status quo’ refers to the legally relevant relationship between the parties 25 before the controversy arose”) (citing McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1020 (9th Cir. 26 2012)). 27 Here, the last uncontested status of Petitioner was before he was re-detained on October 28 13, 2025. See Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-05632-RMI-RFL, 2025 WL 1853763, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 1 Jul. 4, 2025) (finding that the “moment prior to the Petitioner’s likely illegal detention” is the status 2 quo). Petitioner had been on supervised release for over twenty years until he was re-detained by 3 the government. Petitioner states that during that time prior to his re-detainment, he was required 4 to report once per year, and he was not required to wear a monitoring device. Respondents were 5 ordered to return Petitioner to the status quo prior to re-detainment. When Respondents released 6 Petitioner from custody, however, he was required to report every two months, and has been 7 required to wear an ankle monitoring device. (Doc. 23 at 2.) 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, on or before March 22, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW 10 CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for violating the Court’s order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: March 17, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Warden of the Golden State McFarland Detention Facility, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuan-anh-nguyen-v-warden-of-the-golden-state-mcfarland-detention-facility-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack