Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sinthya Judit Lopez Argueta filed a habeas corpus petition in the Central District of California against Todd Lyons and other federal respondents after an arrest and detention on October 14, 2026. The order does not describe the petition's claims in detail, but it says that the arrest and detention precipitated the filing. According to the order, she was later released on an order of supervision dated October 19, 2026.
On October 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Steve Kim issued an in-chambers civil minute order after petitioner reported that respondents had rearrested and re-detained her on October 26, 2026, seven days after her release. Petitioner also claimed that respondents were seeking to remove her from the United States imminently. The order recites these points as petitioner's account. It makes no finding that the rearrest occurred as described, that removal has been scheduled, or that the revocation was unlawful. No attorneys appeared for either side, and the minute order reflects no hearing or briefing from respondents.
The court's stated concern was preserving its ability to decide the habeas petition. It invoked General Order 26-05, which the order says required notice from respondents. The order does not set out the text of that general order or say precisely what notice was missing.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered that petitioner's removal from the United States is administratively stayed for at least 72 hours, pending further order of the court. It grounded the stay in General Order 26-05 and in its inherent authority to manage its docket and preserve its jurisdiction. It cited the habeas statutes, 28 U.S.C. sections 2241(c)(3) and 2243, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1651(a), A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Trump v. J.G.G., and United States v. United Mine Workers. The stay is a temporary holding measure, not a ruling on the merits and not a final judgment.
During the stay, respondents are ordered to show cause in writing, immediately, on two points. First, they must explain why they did not provide the notice required by General Order 26-05. Second, they must explain why the petition should not be granted because of their apparent failure to comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements for revoking the October 19, 2026 order of supervision. The word apparent matters, because the court has not decided that respondents violated any requirement. For the revocation issue the court cites Cheng v. Warden of Adelanto ICE Processing Center, a 2026 Central District decision, with a see, e.g. signal.
The order also adds a contingent directive. If petitioner has already been removed, respondents must explain how they intend to facilitate her return to the United States, if that is what she wants, citing Noem v. Abrego Garcia and Ex parte Endo. That is not a finding that removal has happened and not an order to return her. The order sets no hearing date. The petition remains pending and undecided, with no release, injunction, or grant of habeas relief.
Key Takeaways
- The order administratively stays petitioner's removal for at least 72 hours, and the stay lasts until the court issues a further order.
- Respondents must immediately explain in writing why they did not give the notice required by General Order 26-05.
- Respondents must also show cause why the petition should not be granted based on their apparent noncompliance with statutory and regulatory requirements for revoking the October 19, 2026 order of supervision.
- If petitioner has already been removed, respondents must explain how they would facilitate her return if she wants to return.
- The rearrest and imminent-removal assertions are petitioner's allegations as recited by the court, and the order does not resolve the merits.
Why It Matters
This is a short, unreported chambers minute order, not a published opinion, and it decides no merits question. It is a case-management and preservation order whose weight is limited to this docket. It does show how the court uses a general order and its inherent authority to protect its jurisdiction when a habeas petitioner is reported to face imminent removal. The Cheng citation and the focus on revocation of an order of supervision may matter more when the court rules after respondents respond, but this order does not hold that any revocation requirement was violated.
Much remains open: whether respondents gave required notice, whether the rearrest complied with revocation rules, whether petitioner has been removed, and whether habeas relief should be granted. The show-cause directive requires respondents to give the first explanation, but it does not shift any ultimate burden on the merits.