# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · June 11, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387926

## Case

- **Full name:** Claudio Geraro Moreno Ignacio v. Warden of the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 11, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387926

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CLAUDIO GERARO MORENO No. 1:26-cv-04360-DAD-SCR (HC)
IGNACIO,
12
Petitioner,
13 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
14 CORPUS AND DENYING PETITIONER’S
WARDEN OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT
15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
(Doc. Nos. 2, 3, 4)
16 Respondents.

17
18 On June 8, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19 § 2241 challenging his detention by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
20 (“ICE”). (Doc. No. 1.) That same day, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order
21 requesting his immediate release from custody. (Doc. No. 2.) On June 9, 2026, the court set a
22 briefing schedule as to petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and directed
23 respondent to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from
24 the circumstances addressed in several cited prior cases that this court has decided. (Doc. No. 7.)
25 Respondents argue that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
26 § 1231(a)(2), which mandates detention for ninety (90) days following the entry of a final
27 removal order. (Doc. No. 8 at 1–2.) Respondents contend that petitioner was ordered removed
28 on May 14, 2026 and that he waived appeal with respect to that decision. (Id.; Doc. No. 8-1 at 1–
1 | 2.) A removal order becomes administratively final upon waiver of a right to appeal that order to
2 | the Board of Immigration Appeals. Montalvan v. Crawford, No. 06-cv-02800-PHX-SMM, 2007
3 | WL 162684, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 18, 2007) (finding that a removal order was final immediately
4 | upon waiver of right to appeal); see also Tek v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t Field Off, Dir., No.
5 | 2:26-cv-00126-RAJ, 2026 WL 791798, at *1—-2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 2026) (finding removal
6 | order became final upon waiver of appeal). Detention for the first 90 days following entry of a
7 | final removal order is mandatory. Arango Marquez v. I.N.S., 346 F.3d 892, 898 (9th Cir. 2003)
8 | (“Detention during the [90-day] removal period is mandatory.”). Accordingly, petitioner is
9 | currently subject to mandatory detention.
10 Respondents do not oppose this court ruling on the merits of the underlying petition based
11 | upon the briefing currently before the court. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) Accordingly, the court will reach
12 || the merits of the underlying petition and will deny petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
13 | without prejudice to refiling once the mandatory detention period has lapsed if petitioner remains
14 | incustody past that date.
15 For the reasons above,
16 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED without
17 prejudice to its refiling following the lapse of the ninety-day mandatory detention
18 period set by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2);
19 2. Petitioner’s pending motions for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2),
20 appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3), and in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 4)
21 are DENIED has having been rendered moot by this order; and
22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of respondents and
23 close this case.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
| Dated: _ June 10, 2026 Dake A. 2, oyel
26 DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11387926. Public record. Not legal advice.