govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03739-0

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 
JAIME FARIAS-VALDOVINES, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
WARDEN, 
Respondent. 
No. 1:26-cv-03739-DAD-CKD 
 
ORDER RELATING AND REASSIGNING 
CASES AND SETTING BRIEFING 
SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR 
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 
 
JAIME FARIAS-VALDOVINES, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
M. WOFFORD, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
 
No. 1:26-cv-04146-DC-CKD 
New Case No. 1:26-cv-04146-DAD-CKD 
 
An examination of the above-captioned actions reveals that they are related within the 
meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Accordingly, assignment of the above-captioned actions to the 
same district judge and magistrate judge will promote substantial efficiency and economy for the 
court and is likely to be convenient for the parties. 
An order relating cases under this court’s Local Rule 123 merely assigns them to the same 
district judge and magistrate judge—it does not consolidate the cases. The local rules of this 
district authorize the judge with the lowest numbered case to order the reassignment of any higher 
numbered cases to himself or herself, upon determining that this assignment is likely to effect a 

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 
 
 
savings of judicial effort. L.R. 123(c). Such good cause appearing here, the court orders that 
Case No. 1:26-cv-04146-DC-CKD shall be reassigned to the undersigned. The caption on 
documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as: 1:26-cv-04146-DAD-CKD. It is 
further ordered that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of civil 
cases to compensate for this reassignment. 
On May 30, 2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order in the action 
now titled 1:26-cv-04146-DAD-CKD. Respondents are DIRECTED to file an opposition to the 
pending motion for temporary restraining order no later than June 11, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. In that 
opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this 
case would distinguish it from this court’s decisions in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-
01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025); Perez v. Albarran, No. 
1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025); Chavarria v. 
Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. 
Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); 
Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB 
(HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026); Cardenas v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-02073-
DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026); J.P.C. v. Chestnut, 1:26-cv-02108-
DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 788129 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026), and other similar cases previously 
decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. 
The court will construe failure to distinguish the above cited cases as a concession that the cases 
are not substantively distinguishable. If respondents oppose this court ruling on the underlying 
petition, then respondents are DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in 
support thereof in their opposition. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 10, 2026 
DALE A. DROZD 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight