Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00069

#1

Jan 05, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Martin Anaya Flores. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12721963) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#2

Jan 06, 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 SSA) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#3

Jan 06, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Martin Anaya Flores. Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2026 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Proposed Order)(Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#4

Jan 06, 2026

CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#5

Jan 07, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/7/2026: Pending the issuance of the courts order resolving the pending 3 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 1/8/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address the impact of the court's decision in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) on this action, in particular whether petitioner is a member of the "Bond Eligible Class" certified in that order. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. The previously scheduled hearing date of 1/12/2026 is VACATED. (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 01/07/2026)

Jan 07, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#6

Jan 08, 2026

RESPONSE by Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Polly Kaiser, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem to 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 5 Minute Order,,,,,,, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,. Attorney Lee, Justin added. (Lee, Justin) (Entered: 01/08/2026)

#7

Jan 09, 2026

RESPONSE by Martin Anaya Flores to 6 Response,. (Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#8

Jan 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/12/2026: On 1/6/2026 petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requesting his immediate release. (Doc. No. 3 .) On 1/8/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 6 ) to that motion. Respondents concede in their opposition that, petitioner appears to be a Bautista class member... (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) Having considered the circumstances of petitioners detention and the parties arguments, the court finds its prior order issued in Rangel v. Noem, et al., No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), where it addressed the applicability of Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), to be analogous to the circumstances presented in connection with the pending motion. The court also finds that petitioner is likely to prevail on his claim that he is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). However, the court finds that petitioner has not established a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that he is entitled to immediate release absent a bond hearing. In this regard, petitioner does not appear to have had a previous determination made by an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security official regarding whether he poses a danger or a flight risk if released. (Doc. No. [3-4] at 1012.) At this stage of this litigation, petitioners statutory right to a bond hearing provides him with adequate process to protect against an erroneous deprivation of his liberty interests. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022) ([8 U.S.C.] § 1226(a)s procedures satisfy due process, both facially and as applied to Rodriguez Diaz.) Accordingly, pursuant to this courts reasoning in Rangel, petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) is GRANTED in part, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order; and (2) petitioners request for a temporary restraining order requiring respondents to immediately release him from confinement is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal if appropriate. 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 PAB) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

Jan 12, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#9

Feb 05, 2026

Preliminary Injunction

#10

Feb 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/6/2026: On 2/5/2026, petitioner filed a 9 motion for preliminary injunction based on changed circumstances. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 9 motion for preliminary injunction no later than 5:00 PM on Friday, 2/13/2026. Any reply shall be filed no later than 5:00 pm, on Tuesday, 2/17/2026. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

Feb 06, 2026

Minute Order

#11

Feb 12, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#12

Feb 17, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#13

Mar 25, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order