govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03870-2

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 
27 
28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
ALEX ALBERTO FLORES 
HERNANDEZ, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY 
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 
Respondent. 
 
No. 1:26-cv-03870-DAD-JDP 
 
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 
MOTIONS 
(Doc. Nos. 11, 12) 
 
 On June 1, 2026, the court ordered that this petition be transferred to the District of 
Maryland on the basis that the petition sought enforcement of an order issued by that district 
court. (Doc. No. 9.) On June 4, 2026, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, 
arguing that the court’s order was premised on the “incorrect assumption that an active case was 
pending in Maryland.” (Doc. No. 11 at 1.) Petitioner’s contention in this regard is mistaken: the 
court’s order was premised on the District of Maryland possessing “exclusive jurisdiction over 
enforcement of its order,” not on whether any action was pending in that district. (Doc. No. 9 at 
1.) Moreover, this court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its order because this action has been 
transferred to the District of Maryland. See ESCO Corp. v. Cashman Equip. Co., No. 2:12-cv-
01545-RCJ, 2014 WL 117576, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2014) (finding that transfer deprived the 
court over further jurisdiction over the case and denying a motion to reconsider the order 

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 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
 
transferring the action on that basis) (citing Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1987)). 
Accordingly, the court will deny petitioner’s motion to reconsider. 
 Petitioner also filed a motion to reopen this action (Doc. No. 12) on the grounds that the 
District of Maryland denied his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner attaches 
that court’s order denying his petition to his motion filed with this court. (Id. at 6–8.) In that 
order, the district judge found that petitioner had already previously raised his claim that the bond 
hearing ordered by that court was defective in the prior habeas action and that the district judge 
had denied relief as to that claim. (Id. at 6.) The district judge reiterated that a district court lacks 
jurisdiction to review an immigration judge’s decision to deny bond pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 
1226(e). (Id. at 7.) Finally, the district judge in the Maryland action found that the court had 
already concluded that its order requiring a bond hearing had been complied with and the court no 
longer had jurisdiction to “ensure compliance” with that order. (Id. at 8.) The district judge in 
Maryland concluded that any further habeas relief must be sought by petitioner in the Eastern 
District of California. (Id.) 
 This court will deny petitioner’s motion to reopen both because it is unclear whether this 
court possesses jurisdiction to reopen this specific action and because consideration of 
petitioner’s claim could result in inconsistent results given the District of Maryland’s denial of 
petitioner’s petition. See Carthen v. Scott, No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (HC), 2024 WL 
4894485, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2024) (denying motion to reopen on the basis that additional 
proceedings could result in inconsistent results). Petitioner is advised that, if he desires to file for 
further habeas relief on a new basis that has not already been addressed by the orders issued by 
District of Maryland addressing his petition and related motions filed before that court, he must 
file a new petition for writ of habeas corpus. 
///// 
///// 
///// 
///// 
///// 

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 
27 
28 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 For the reasons above, 
 1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED; 
 2. Petitioner’s motion to reopen this action (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED; and 
 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to disregard any further filings in this action. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 9, 2026 
DALE A. DROZD 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight