Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ricardo Moctezuma Sanchez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case is docketed as Case No. 1:26-cv-05772-KES-SAB-HC, and the order at issue is Document 10, filed November 6, 2026. The caption names Tonya Andrews and other respondents, and the order describes Petitioner as an immigration detainee.
The court explained that a search of the Executive Office of Immigration Review's Automated Case Information System using Petitioner's A-number reflected that an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed on August 17, 2026. A separate search of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Online Detainee Locator System using the same A-number returned zero results. Those database results led the court to observe that Petitioner may not be in ICE custody, which could moot the pending habeas petition under Abdala v. I.N.S., 488 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007), because there would be no extant controversy if he had been deported.
The Court’s Holding
The order does not decide that the petition is moot. Instead, it treats the database results as a reason to require more information before any merits or justiciability ruling: within five days of service of the order, Respondents must inform the Court of Petitioner's current custody status and file any supporting documentation. The operative command is directed to Respondents, not to Petitioner, and it requires a status report plus documentation rather than a bare yes-or-no answer about detention.
United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone signed the order on November 6, 2026. The practical effect is a short-fused screening directive: if the report shows that Petitioner has been removed or is no longer in custody, the court will be better positioned to decide whether the habeas petition has become moot; if he remains detained, the litigation can proceed on the existing record. The order is interlocutory and leaves the merits of the habeas petition and any mootness determination for later.
Key Takeaways
- The court relied on public EOIR and ICE database searches, but characterized the custody conclusion only as an appearance that Petitioner may not be in ICE custody, not as a factual finding of removal or release.
- The operative deadline runs from service of the order, not from the filing date, and it is five days.
- Respondents bear the burden of the next filing: they must report current custody status and attach supporting documentation.
- The citation to Abdala supports the limited proposition that a habeas challenge to the length of immigration detention can become moot when there is no longer an extant controversy because the petitioner has been deported.
- The order does not dismiss the case and does not resolve whether the petition is moot; it directs a verified custody report so the court can make that determination on a developed record.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how a district court handles a pro se immigration habeas petition when administrative systems point toward removal but the detainee no longer appears in ICE's locator. Rather than dismissing immediately, the court ordered a verified custody report, preserving the record and giving Respondents a concrete obligation. The decision is significant for its posture: it is an interlocutory screening order about justiciability-adjacent facts, not a final ruling on the legality of detention or on mootness.
It also shows the court distinguishing database indications from established facts, because the order frames the removal and custody conclusions as what the searches 'reflect' or what 'appears' to be true, while the only operative command is the five-day directive to Respondents to report current custody status with supporting documentation.