Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00062

#1

Jan 05, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pam Bondi, CHRISTOPHER CHESNUT, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by E-L-E-E-. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12721957) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Powers, Madeleine) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#2

Jan 05, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Jan 05, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by E-L-E-E-. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Proceed Under Pseudonym, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Attorney Madeleine Powers, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A Declaration of Petitioner, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B Declaration of Petitioner's Sister, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C Notice to Appear, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit D Notice Granting Humanitarian Parole, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit E Petitioner's I-589 Application for Asylum, Withholding, and CAT, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit F Notice of Cancellation of Master Hearing, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit G Compliance with Interim Order, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit H Notice of Individual Hearing, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit I EOIR Case Status Printout, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit J Search Results from ICE Detainee Locator Website, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit K Maldonado Bautista et al. v. Santacruz Jr. et al.)(Powers, Madeleine) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#4

Jan 05, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED: Consent or Decline due by 2/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#5

Jan 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/5/2026: 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 tomorrow, 1/6/2026, 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 and 3 motion to proceed under a pseudonym by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 1/7/2026. 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 Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 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. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Jan 06, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#7

Jan 07, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Jan 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/9/2026: On 1/05/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) and a motion to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. No. 3 ). The court GRANTS petitioners unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym because petitioner has alleged that he survived persecution of a sensitive nature and disclosure of his identity could lead to further stigma and harm. (Doc. No. 3 at 34.) See Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (To determine whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously when the opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five factors[.]) (emphasis added); R.B.A. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-00562-KKE, 2025 WL 1285852, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2025) (finding sufficient grounds for Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously in asylum proceedings). When setting the briefing schedule for respondents opposition to petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order, the court directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the circumstances addressed in this courts order in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court. In their opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ) respondents argue that this case is distinguishable from Rocha Chavarria because petitioner has been in the United States for a short period of time and because petitioner violated the terms of his parole by failing to report his change of address on July 25, 2025. (Id. at 12.) The court is not persuaded by respondents implied argument that petitioners liberty interest is significantly lessened because the length of his stay in the United States was just under one year at the time of his detention. See Noori v. LaRose, F. Supp. 3d, 2025 WL 2800149, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025) (Petitioner has a private interest in remaining free, which developed over the year he resided in the United States.). Regarding the reason for the revocation of petitioners parole, respondents do not argue that petitioner was provided written notice of the reason for the revocation, while petitioner argues that he complied with the terms of his release order and with all reporting requirements imposed by [the Department of Homeland Security] since his release on 1/25/2025. (Doc. No 2 -3 at 7.) The court therefore concludes that petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that his parole revocation violated due process because he did not receive written notice of the reason for revocation. See Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 114446 (D. Or. 2025) (describing the requisite procedures to revoke parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182, including the providing of written notice of revocation to the petitioner); see also Noori, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11 (Thus, Petitioner was entitled to due process in his parole revocation. Particularly, he was entitled to both notification of revocation and the reasoning for revocation, if not also an opportunity to be heard and contest the determination.)Accordingly, for the reasons explained above and based upon the courts reasoning in Rocha Chavarria, petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED and the court ORDERS the following: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his detention on December 11, 2025; and (2) respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner written notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator. 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 parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

Jan 09, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Pseudonym AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings