Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00009

#1

Jan 02, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Thai Quang Tran by Thai Quang Tran. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12717875) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cummings, Robert) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#2

Jan 02, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Thai Quang Tran. (Cummings, Robert) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#3

Jan 02, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 2/5/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk JJD) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#4

Jan 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/3/2026: (Text Only Entry).Pending the issuance of the courts order resolving the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that respondents shall not take any action to remove petitioner from the United States or to move petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (acknowledging the courts express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction). Given the exigent circumstances present, the court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending its forthcoming order resolving petitioner's pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than Monday, 1/5/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion to proceed under a pseudonym, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 1/6/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this courts decision in N.D.N. v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-01587-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3251102 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 01/03/2026)

Jan 03, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Jan 06, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#6

Jan 07, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#7

Jan 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/9/2026: On 1/2/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 ). On 1/3/2026, the court issued an order directing respondents to substantively address whether the instant matter is legally or factually distinguishable from the circumstances addressed in the courts prior order in N.D.N. v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-01587-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3251102 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). (Doc. No. 4 ). In their opposition, respondents state that petitioners motion should be converted into a motion for preliminary injunction and waive oral argument. (Doc. No. 5 at 1 n.1.) In opposing petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order, respondents argue, without citation to authority, that the instant case is distinguishable from N.D.N. because here, the [p]etitioner lawfully entered the United States as a refugee and was subsequently granted lawful permanent resident status before he was ordered removed by an immigration judge on November 4, 1996. (Id. at 2) (alteration in original). The court is unconvinced that this difference distinguishes this case from the that circumstance addressed in prior order in N.D.N. in any meaningful manner. Moreover, the court is unpersuaded by respondents argument that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 1226(c) because of his prior aggravated felony convictions under 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). (Id.). Instead, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs his detention because petitioner is subject to a final order of removal issued by an immigration judge. (Id.at 22); Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 530 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that Section 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a final order of removal.). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in N.D.N., 2025 WL 3251102, at *35 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), the court concludes that petitioner is entitled to be immediately released from respondents custody. Moreover, the court is also persuaded by the reasons set forth in N.D.N., 2025 WL 3251102, at *56 and Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778, *46 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025) that before re-detaining petitioner, respondents must provide petitioner with notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will bear the burden of proving a change in circumstances to justify petitioners re-detention. Accordingly, petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction, and is hereby GRANTED in part as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody; (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge; and (3) Petitioners request that the court restrain respondents from transferring him outside this district is denied as having been rendered moot. Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

Jan 09, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO