United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2026

Resul Duzenli v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Resul Duzenli v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 6, 2026
Resul Duzenli v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RESUL DUZENLI, No. 1:26-cv-0014 WBS AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, proceeding through counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondent will be directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Respondent is directed to file an answer/return within 14 days from the date of this order. If an answer/return is filed, respondent shall include with the answer/return any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application.

27 2. Petitioner’s reply/traverse, if any, is due within 7 days after being served a copy of respondent’s answer/return.

1 3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of || petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the United |} States Attorney.

4 4. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 petition, || respondent shall not transfer petitioner outside of this judicial district, pending further order of the || court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which empowers the federal || courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions □ □ . .”); | see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (emphasizing that federal courts || have the power to “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction || pending review of an agency’s action”’).

11 | DATED: January 5, 2026 ~ 12 Chee ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.