Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SELVIN SANTOS REYES, No. 1:26-cv-04397-DAD-SCR (HC)

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

14 WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX

DETENTION FACILITY,

15

Respondent.

16

17

18 On June 8, 2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

19 and a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) On June 9, 2026, the court issued

20 an order that set a briefing schedule on the pending motion and ordered that pending resolution of

21 the motion for temporary order respondent was not to “take any action to remove petitioner from

22 the United States or to move petitioner out of the Eastern District of California.” (Doc. No. 7.)

23 On June 10, 2026, respondent filed an opposition to the pending motion for temporary

24 restraining order. (Doc. No. 8.) In that opposition, respondent states that petitioner is subject to a

25 final order of removal and was scheduled to be removed to Guatemala on June 10, 2026, but that

26 this court’s order prevented that removal from occurring. (Id. at 1.) Respondent urges the court

27 to lift its prior order prohibiting the government from transferring or removing petitioner and

28 argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the execution of petitioner’s removal order. (Id.

1 at 2–3.) Respondent further represents that “[o]n June 9, 2026, at approximately 0500 hours,1

2 Petitioner was transferred from the Golden State Annex detention facility in McFarland,

3 California to the East Montana Staging Camp in El Paso, Texas” where petitioner currently

4 remains pending further order of this court. (Id. at 2.) Respondent insists in conclusory fashion

5 that petitioner was lawfully detained to execute his final order of removal. (Id. at 1 n.1.)

6 However, respondent’s arguments are completely conclusory and not adequately supported by

7 any of the documents attached to that opposition. Because of respondent’s deficient showing in

8 support of its contentions, supplemental briefing will be ordered.

9 It does appear that petitioner has been subject to a final order of removal since 2011 when

10 the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed his appeal and affirmed an Immigration

11 Judge’s (“IJ”) order that petitioner be removed to Guatemala.2 (Doc. No. 8-2 at 6.) However,

12 respondent has provided no explanation as to why the government failed to remove petitioner

13 following the BIA’s dismissed of his appeal in 2011, some fifteen years ago.3 Additionally, the

14 Form I-213 documentation that respondent has submitted with its opposition reveals that

15 petitioner was apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials on or

16 about May 26, 2026, outside of his apartment complex. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 2.) Respondent does

17 not address whether petitioner was previously released from immigration custody after his

18 removal order became final, or whether petitioner’s May 26, 2026 arrest complied with the

19

1 The court issued its order prohibiting petitioner’s removal or transfer at 3:30 p.m. on June 9,

20 2026. If respondent’s representations are accurate, then petitioner was transferred out of the

Eastern District of California several hours before the court issued its order requiring that he not

21 be moved.

22

2 The IJ’s order granted petitioner voluntary departure and alternatively ordered petitioner

23 removed if he failed to comply with the conditions set forth in the IJ’s order granting voluntary

departure. (Doc. No. 8-2 at 6–13.) The BIA found that petitioner failed to comply with the

24 conditions of his voluntary departure and concluded that the IJ’s alternative order of removal was

therefore effective. (Id. at 5.)

25

3 The Form I-213 also reports that petitioner was served a notice of violation and a civil penalty

26

of $1,820,352.00 on April 28, 2026. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 3.) Based on this information, it appears

27 that the government was aware of petitioner’s whereabouts for at least one month prior to his

arrest outside of his apartment. Respondent is directed to provide a more detailed explanation of

28 these circumstances in the supplemental briefing.

1 government’s regulations, which would implicate due process concerns. The court has previously

2 addressed those concerns, stating:

3 [H]ere, ICE failed to provide petitioner with proper notice of this

justification for her detention. To the extent that the reason for

4 revocation of release was a change in the foreseeability of

petitioner’s removal, the notice provided to petitioner was deficient.

5 In this regard, a vague assertion that after a review of petitioner’s file,

ICE determined petitioner could be expeditiously removed is

6 insufficient to constitute adequate notice.

7 Uzzhina v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01594-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3458787, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2,

8 2025). Further, other than the conclusory statement that such is the case respondent has not

9 offered any evidence that petitioner was actually scheduled to be removed to Guatemala on June

10 10, 2026. Finally, respondent has filed a document with the court labeled simply “EADM” that

11 appears to indicate petitioner was booked into the East Montana camp on June 9, 2026 at 3:03

12 p.m., but respondent has failed to explain what this document is or how it relates to respondent’s

13 opposition. (Doc. No. 8-3.) Accordingly, the court finds respondent’s argument to raise more

14 questions than it answers. The court cannot even conclude whether petitioner was transferred out

15 of the Eastern District of California before the court issued its order on June 9, 2026, due to the

16 lack of evidence presented by respondent.

17 At this point, the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s detention and removal status

18 remains a mystery because of respondent’s failure to adequately corroborate respondent’s various

19 representations. Because of these deficiencies, the court is also unable to conclude whether

20 petitioner’s current detention is lawful or whether petitioner’s removal is indeed likely to occur in

21 the foreseeable future.

22 Accordingly, respondent is directed to file supplemental briefing no later than June 12,

23 2026 at noon addressing: (1) why the government failed to remove petitioner between 2011 and

24 2026; (2) whether petitioner was subject to immigration detention or any conditions of

25 supervision after he was ordered removed; (3) any contact that petitioner had with immigration

26 officials between the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal in 2011 and his arrest on or about May 26,

27 /////

28 /////

1 | 2026; and (4) whether petitioner was actually scheduled to be removed to Guatemala on June 9,

2 | 2026. Respondent is further directed to file supporting evidence corroborating the representations

3 | that respondent makes in the supplemental briefing.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

> | Dated: _ June 11, 2026 Dake A. 2, oyel

6 DALE A. DROZD

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28