(HC) Castaneda Lopez v. Noem et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Joye Wiley (CSB #191156)
jw@wileyjobson.com
Cara Jobson (CSB #218400)
cara@wileyjobson.com
Wiley & Jobson, LLP
P.O. Box 459
Berkeley, CA 94701
Tel.: (415) 627-9161
Attorneys for Petitioner
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
) Case No. 1:25-cv-01833-KES-EPG
)
LOPEZ )
)
) STATUS REPORT AND
Petitioner ) JOINT BRIEFING SCHEDULE
)
v. )
)
NOEM, et al. )
)
)
)
Respondents. )
_______________________________)
Pursuant to the Court’s December 23, 2025 Order (ECF No. 9), counsel for the parties
submit the following status report and briefing schedule regarding Petitioner’s Habeas Petition:
Petitioner’s Position on Mootness and Holding this Matter in Abeyance:
Petitioner does not consider this matter moot. A PI is by definition a temporary form of
relief that only lasts until the case is resolved. If this case is dismissed without a final decision,
the PI would likely be deemed by Respondents to no longer be in effect, exposing Petitioner to
another re-detention. In addition, since his release, ICE has placed an ankle monitor on Petitioner
Case 1:25-cv-01883-KES-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and ordered him to report to their offices every two weeks. These are conditions that were not in
place prior to his detention.
Petitioner opposes holding this matter in abeyance given the nature of the relief sought.
Petitioner requests that this matter move forward to a final decision on his habeas petition so that
his liberty interest is protected.
Respondents’ Position on Mootness and Holding This Matter in Abeyance
Respondents agree that this matter is not moot. Nonetheless, Respondents respectfully
request that the Court hold this matter in abeyance pending resolution of Rodriguez v. Bostock,
no. 25-6842 (9th Cir.). Respondents believe that holding this matter in abeyance will conserve
judicial resources until the Ninth Circuit provides clearer guidance on the correct interpretation
of the government’s immigration detention authority.
Briefing Schedule
Respondents’ Opposition to Petitioner’s Habeas: January 23, 2026
Petitioner’s Reply: January 30, 2026
Dated: January 8, 2026 By: /s/ Cara Jobson
Counsel for Petitioner
/s/ Samuel Stefanki
Assistant United States Attorney
ORDER
Case 1:25-cv-01883-KES-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court hereby orders the following briefing
schedule regarding Petitioner’s Habeas Petition:
Respondents’ Opposition to Petitioner’s Habeas: January 23, 2026
Petitioner’s Reply: January 30, 2026
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01883-KES-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 3