Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Francisco Rodriguez, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee who filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The respondents are identified in the caption as the Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility and others. The November 3, 2026 order is docketed as Document 6 in Case No. 1:26-cv-09054-JLT-EPG-HC.
The court conducted the preliminary review required at the screening stage and stated that it was not clear from the face of the petition whether Rodriguez was entitled to relief. It cited 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and proceeded under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A footnote explains that those rules may apply to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b). The order therefore does not grant or deny habeas relief, decide the lawfulness of Rodriguez's detention, or resolve any merits issue; it directs further litigation of the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the respondent to file a response within twenty-one days after service of the order. The response must address whether this case is distinguishable from cases in which the court has granted habeas relief. The respondent may either answer the merits of the petition or move to dismiss it. If the respondent answers and contends that Rodriguez procedurally defaulted a claim, that argument must be included in the answer, but the answer must also address the merits of the asserted claim. The court cited Cluchette v. Rushen for its discretion to set the response time and Schwarz v. Meinberg in rejecting a challenge to a response period exceeding the limits specified in § 2243.
Within the same twenty-one-day period, the respondent must file all transcripts or other documents necessary to resolve the issues presented. Those materials must be filed electronically and, to the extent practicable, supplied in Optical Character Recognition format; hard copies may not be filed unless the court orders otherwise. If an answer is filed, Rodriguez may file a traverse within fourteen days after service, and the petition and answer are deemed submitted when that period expires without a traverse. If a motion to dismiss is filed, Rodriguez must oppose it or file a statement of non-opposition within fourteen days after service, and any reply is due seven days after the opposition is filed in CM/ECF. The motion is deemed submitted when the reply time expires.
All motions will be submitted on the record and briefs without oral argument unless the court orders otherwise. The deadlines are firm, and a party needing more time must move to amend the schedule before a deadline passes and explain in detail why compliance is impossible. Extensions require good cause, and Local Rule 110 applies. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered a response because preliminary review did not make clear from the petition's face whether Rodriguez was entitled to habeas relief.
- The warden must either answer the merits or move to dismiss within twenty-one days after service of the order.
- An answer asserting procedural default must also address the merits of the claim said to be defaulted.
- Necessary transcripts and documents must be filed electronically within twenty-one days, with OCR formatting required to the extent practicable.
- The order sets separate traverse and motion-to-dismiss briefing periods but does not decide whether Rodriguez should be released or otherwise granted relief.
Why It Matters
The order moves Rodriguez's immigration-detention challenge beyond preliminary screening and requires the custodian to engage with both the petition and the court's prior grants of habeas relief. Its direction to distinguish those cases frames an express issue for the response without predicting how the court will ultimately rule.
The schedule also defines the procedural route to submission: an answer permits an optional traverse, while a dismissal motion requires opposition or a statement of non-opposition and allows a reply. Firm deadlines, electronic record filing, and submission without oral argument unless otherwise ordered establish how the next phase will proceed, while the merits remain open.