Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The order applies to all immigration habeas cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and assigned to Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley in the Eastern District of California. It is captioned as a standing order concerning transfer, referral, and briefing schedules. The document establishes procedures for those cases rather than adjudicating an individual petitioner's entitlement to release or other habeas relief.
Nunley wrote that the court was experiencing a longstanding judicial emergency greatly exacerbated by an influx of immigration habeas petitions. Citing the court's judicial-emergency announcement, he stated that the district had one of the nation's largest immigration-habeas volumes and that more than 6,000 such petitions were filed during the first nine months of the year. He said the unprecedented volume had far-reaching effects, including significant delays in resolving other federal cases.
The order links its transfer restriction and case-management provisions to those conditions. Nunley stated that preserving the status quo in newly filed cases would allow the court to assess and maintain its jurisdiction and authority to grant requested relief, ensure that parties could participate and be heard, and facilitate management of habeas petitions alongside other urgent civil and criminal matters.
The Court’s Holding
The order prohibits respondents from transferring a petitioner outside the Eastern District of California while the habeas petition remains pending. It permits an outside transfer for urgent medical care, provided respondents notify the court within a reasonable time, and allows respondents to seek modification or dissolution. Nunley cited the courts' limited power to preserve jurisdiction or maintain the status quo pending review, along with the All Writs Act's authorization of writs necessary or appropriate in aid of jurisdiction.
Each matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings under Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), unless the petitioner filed a temporary-restraining-order motion with the petition. Referral does not disturb the transfer prohibition. For matters initiated with such a motion, the court intends to rule directly on the petition while also considering arguments supporting the motion, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2).
Respondents must answer within two court days and supply specified immigration records, including Form I-213 for each encounter, release, detention, or bond orders, custody determinations, warrants, notices revoking release, and other relevant A-File material. Unexplained nonproduction will support an inference that the records do not exist, while failure to respond timely will be treated as non-opposition. The order also permits replies, discourages duplicative emergency filings, invites status updates and analytically supported proposed orders, requires notices of related cases within three court days or promptly after discovery, and reminds parties to redact personally identifiable information.
Key Takeaways
- Respondents generally may not transfer a petitioner outside the Eastern District of California before the court rules on the habeas petition.
- Urgent medical transfers are allowed with reasonable-time notice, and respondents may ask the court to modify or dissolve the restriction.
- Referral to the assigned magistrate judge is the default unless a temporary-restraining-order motion accompanied the petition.
- In cases initiated with that motion, respondents have two court days to answer and produce the immigration records specified by the order.
- The standing order also addresses replies, status updates, proposed orders, related-case notices, and protection of personally identifiable information.
Why It Matters
The standing order creates a uniform framework for immigration habeas cases assigned to Nunley, combining a status-quo transfer restriction with expedited answers and record production. Its express purposes include preserving the court's ability to adjudicate petitions and ensuring that the parties can participate in those proceedings.
The order also responds to the administrative pressure described by the court by limiting duplicative requests for immediate relief and encouraging useful status updates and proposed orders. It does not decide the merits of any individual habeas petition, but it establishes consequential procedures governing how the covered petitions will proceed.