Quang Vinh Duong v. Marcos Charles

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA QUANG VINH DUONG, Case No. 1:25-cv-01375-SKO (HC)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDANT 11 TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL v. DECLARATION MARCOS CHARLES, 14 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 16 The Court has reviewed Petitioner Quang Vinh Duong’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1); motion for temporary restraining order, (Doc. 2); opposition to the motion by Respondents Marcos Charles, Moises Becerra, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi, (Doc. 12); and associated declaration by Deportation Officer Samuel Medina Jr, (Doc. 13 (“Medina Decl.”)); as well as Petitioner’s reply, (Doc. 15).

21 In the course of the Court’s review of the papers, the Court has taken judicial notice of Government’s filings in a similar case, Nguyen v Albarran, that is currently being adjudicated in this District. No. 1:25-cv-01327-KES-SKO (HC); see Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”). The Court observes that, in that case, the relevant Deportation Officer filed a declaration that included a copy of the travel documents obtained for petition in that case.

27 (See Nguyen, 1:25-cv-01327-KES-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025) (Doc. 15)). That declaration included a statement under oath and subject to penalty of perjury that Enforcement and Removal Operations had “tentatively scheduled [petitioner’s] removal for the week of November 2, 2025.” Id. The filings in Nguyen, stand in contrast to the Declaration signed by Deportation Officer Samuel Medina Jr. in this case.

4 Deportation Officer Medina’s Declaration includes a statement under penalty of perjury that states “[o]n August 27, 2025, Petitioner’s travel documents were finalized and departure flight scheduled.” (Medina Decl. ¶ 13). While the declaration includes ten exhibits providing documentation supporting almost all of the other statements declared, Officer Medina provides no documentation of the travel documents or the departure flight. Nor does Officer Medina provide the Court with the date of the scheduled flight.

10 Because Respondents have not provided any documentation of travel documents being issued to Petitioner, nor have they stated when Petitioner’s flight has been scheduled, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file a supplemental declaration (1) providing documentation of the travel documents that have been issued to petitioner, and (2) providing documentation of Petitioner’s scheduled flight by no later than 12:00 PM PT on October 28, 2025. Petitioner may file a response 12:00 PM PT on October 30, 2025.

16 In the meantime, and unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Court ORDERS that Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States nor transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting court’s “express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction”). Under the circumstances, the Court finds that this Order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending the issuance of any further order adjudicating this motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: October 27, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE