Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Argenis Enrique Flores Oquendo, a federal immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, petitioned the Eastern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He alleges that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights through his detention since July 25, 2026. The named respondent is the warden of the California City immigration detention facility. Those claims are allegations only, and the order makes no findings about them.
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin conducted a preliminary review and concluded it is not clear from the face of the petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which the court notes may apply to section 2241 petitions, the court directed the government to respond rather than ruling on the petition. It cited Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), for its discretion to set the response deadline, and an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision, Schwartz v. Meinberg, on a deadline longer than the statutory limits. This is a case-management order, not a merits decision.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Respondent to file, within 21 days of service, either an answer addressing the merits or a motion to dismiss. The response must state the statutory basis for Petitioner's detention and address whether this case is distinguishable from recent analogous cases in which the court has granted habeas relief. If Respondent contends a claim is procedurally defaulted, that argument must appear in the answer and be paired with a response on the merits.
Within the same 21 days, Respondent must file all transcripts and other documents needed to resolve the issues raised, electronically only and in searchable OCR format where practicable, with no hard copies unless the court orders otherwise. If Respondent answers, Petitioner may file a traverse within 14 days of service. Absent a traverse, the matter is deemed submitted when those 14 days expire. If Respondent moves to dismiss, Petitioner must oppose or state non-opposition within 14 days, and any reply is due seven days after the opposition is filed. Motions are decided on the papers without oral argument unless the court orders otherwise.
Pending the court's decision, respondents may not transfer Petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. The court grounded this restriction in its authority under the All Writs Act, citing F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., to protect its own jurisdiction. The order permits temporary transfer for urgent medical care, requires Petitioner's return to the district afterward, and requires respondents to notify the court of any such transfer. The court called the dates firm. Any extension requires a motion filed before the deadline showing good cause.
Key Takeaways
- The order is procedural: it requires a response and sets deadlines, but it does not decide whether Petitioner's detention is lawful.
- Respondent must identify the statutory basis for the detention and explain why this case differs from recent analogous matters in which the court granted habeas relief.
- Respondent may answer or move to dismiss, but any procedural default argument must be made in an answer and accompanied by a merits response.
- Respondents may not move Petitioner out of the district while the petition is pending, except temporarily for urgent medical care with notice to the court and prompt return.
- The deadlines are firm, and any extension request must be filed before the deadline expires and must show good cause.
Why It Matters
For detainees and practitioners in the Eastern District, the order shows how the court handles a pro se immigration habeas petition at the outset. It does not dismiss on screening, and it directs the government to justify the detention and confront the court's own recent decisions on similar facts. The order does not say what those decisions held, so their reasoning must be found elsewhere.
Nothing is resolved. The court has not ruled on due process, the lawfulness of detention, or any request for release. The transfer restriction is an interim measure that lasts only until the court decides the petition. As a magistrate judge's order, it is a non-merits scheduling and preservation directive with little precedential value.