United States v. Parias
Case Details
- Case No.: 2:25-cr-00904
- Case Filed: October 21, 2025
- Jurisdiction: C.D. Cal.
- Charges: 18 U.S.C. 111, 18 U.S.C. 1361
- Case Outcome: Dismissal with Prejudice
- Judge: Olguin, Fernando, M.
- US Attorney: Essayli, Bilal A.
- Defendant(s): Parias, Carlitos Ricardo
- Defense Attorney: Ortega, Cuauhtemoc
Key Topics in the Case
Case Analysis
Login is required to view the "Case Analysis" section of the Case Tracker. This content is limited to defense practitioners. Please log in or create a free NACDL account to continue. Non-NACDL members will be prompted to complete a brief attorney attestation form before access is granted.
Case Files
-
ECF: 1 - 10/21/25 - Government - Complaint
Complaint -
ECF: 4 - 10/31/25 - Defense - Motions
Defendants Motion for Pretrial Release -
ECF: 21 - 11/05/25 - Defense - Motions
Defendants Motion re: Bail -
ECF: 24 - 11/04/25 - Government - Indictment
Indictment -
ECF: 54 - 12/10/25 - Defense - Motion to Dismiss
Defense Motion to Dismiss w/ Prejudice -
ECF: 63 - 12/15/25 - Defense - Motion to Dismiss
Defense Reply to Government Opposition to Motion to Dismiss -
ECF: 72 - 12/23/25 - Government - Other
Government Trial Memorandum -
ECF: 73 - 12/24/25 - Defense - Other
Defense Pretrial Status Report Explaining Government Refusals to Provide Discovery and Other Alleged Misconduct -
ECF: 75 - 12/24/25 - Government - Other
Government Response to Defense Pretrial Status Report -
ECF: 76 - 12/26/25 - Court - Court Orders
Court Order Dismissing Indictment with Prejudice for Violating Defendant's Right to Counsel -
ECF: 79 - 12/30/25 - Government - Post Trial Matters
Government Notice of Appeal
Argument(s)
Final - Date Filed 12/30/25 - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
See the Analysis section for appeal analysis.
Appeal Details
- Case Number: 25-8156
- Date Filed: 12/30/2025
- Jurisdiction: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
- Type: Final
- Status: Pending
Questions Presented
Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing all criminal charges with prejudice because—following defendant’s release under the Bail Reform Act—defendant was civilly detained under the Immigration and Nationality Act pending his removal from the United States, and his criminal defense lawyer was unable to schedule a videoconference with him in the weeks leading up to his initial trial date.
Suggest a Case
Know of a federal case that departs from traditional enforcement norms? Let us know.
Suggest a CaseResources
Case Tracker Feedback
Help us improve the Unusual Case Tracker by sharing your experience and suggestions.
Take Brief Survey
