1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PARSHANT PARSHANT, No. 1:25-cv-01968-DJC-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is representing himself, filed a petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to

, including an ex parte request for a temporary 19 restraining order. ECF No. 1 at 6. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action. 20 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the 21 Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 Because petitioner may be entitled 22 to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, the Clerk of Court 23 will be directed to serve respondents with the habeas corpus petition. 24 In addition, respondents are ordered to show cause why petitioner’s temporary restraining 25 order should not be granted in light of the Court’s prior rulings in Lopez v. Lyons, No. 2:25-cv- 26

27 1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions including § 2241 28 petitions. 1 03174-DJC-CKD; Singh v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01543-DJC-SCR; Mariagua v. Chestnut, No. 2 1:25-cv-01744-DJC-CSK; Ortega v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01663-DJC-CKD; and Souza v. 3 Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-01597-DJC-JDP. The response to the show cause shall be filed no later 4 than January 5, 2026 by 5:00 p.m. At the expiration of this deadline, the request for a temporary 5 restraining order will be taken under submission without a hearing absent further order of the 6 court. 7 In light of the expedited nature of petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order, 8 which appears to raise a pure legal question, the court denies petitioner’s motion for the 9 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the 10 proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner,

, 460 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that there is 11 no absolute right to appointed counsel in a habeas corpus action). 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of 14 petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

on the United 15 States Attorney. 16 2. Respondents are directed to show cause no later than January 5, 2026 by 5:00 p.m. 17 how this case is factually or legally distinguishable from the cases listed in this order that would 18 justify denying petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order. 19 3. The request for a temporary restraining order is not set for a hearing at this time, 20 although the Court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. 21 4. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) is denied without 22 prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. 23 5. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, 24 respondent shall not transfer petitioner to another detention center outside of this judicial district, 25 pending further order of the court. See

(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which 26 empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective 27 jurisdictions….”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co.,

(1966) (emphasizing that 28 //// 1 | federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by 2 || injunction pending review of an agency’s action’’). 3 | DATED: December 29, 2025

° SEAN C. RIORDAN 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28