Quang Vinh Duong v. Marcos Charles

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

12 ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER AND Petitioner, RESPONDANT TO SUPPLEMENTAL 13 BRIEFING v. MARCOS CHARLES, Respondents. _____________________________________/ 18 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). The Court has also reviewed Respondents’ Supplemental Declaration by Acting Supervisor Detention and Deportation Officer Ramiro Sanchez, (Doc. 17 (“Sanchez Decl.”), and Petitioner’s Response, (Doc. 18).

25 Before the Court is able to rule on Petitioner’s motion, the Court requires supplemental briefing from each of the parties as follows: 27 1. Respondents are ORDERED to file a supplemental brief addressing the 28 inconsistency between the issue date of the travel document attached to the Sanchez 1 Declaration. The travel document lists an issue date of September 4, 2025. However, 2 Respondents represent that “[o]n August 27, 2025, Petitioner’s travel documents 3 were finalized, and departure flight was scheduled.” (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 3).

4 Additionally, Respondents represented that “[o]n August 27, 2025, Petitioner’s travel 5 documents were finalized and departure flight scheduled.” (Medina Decl. ¶ 13).

6 Respondents are instructed to file a supplemental brief addressing the statement that 7 “travel documents were finalized and departure flight scheduled” more than a week 8 prior to the existence of a valid travel document.

9 2. Petitioner is ORDERED to file a supplemental brief addressing the status of the 10 pending motions for reopening that he represents he filed in front of both the 11 Immigration Court (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (See Doc.

12 1 at 10). The Court takes judicial notice of the Executive Office of Immigration 13 Review’s Automated Case Information that corresponds to Petitioner’s A-Number, 14 see Automated Case Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation 15 (A-Number: 072-637-618), which does not reflect any open pending matter. Reyn’s 16 Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We may 17 take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”).

18 Because the Court requires more information regarding the status of these motions, 19 Petitioner is instructed to file a supplemental brief addressing (1) any confirmation 20 he received of the receipt and docketing of these motions, (2) any information he has 21 regarding the status of these motions.

22 The parties are ORDERED to file their respective supplemental briefs by no later than 5:00 PM PT on November 5, 2025.

24 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.

5 Dated: October 31, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE