Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00146

#1

Jan 09, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Christopher Chestnut by Lirica Mondragon Villada. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12742336) (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#2

Jan 09, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Lirica Mondragon Villada. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#3

Jan 09, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Lirica Mondragon Villada. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#4

Jan 09, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 2/12/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#5

Jan 09, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Lirica Mondragon Villada re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#6

Jan 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/9/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 5:00 PM on 1/14/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, Order, Doc. No. 12 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before 1/15/2026. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 12:00 PM on 1/12/2026. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

Jan 09, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#7

Jan 13, 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. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

#8

Jan 14, 2026

RESPONSE by Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem to 6 Minute Order,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Attorney Lee, Justin added. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Lee, Justin) (Entered: 01/14/2026)

#9

Jan 15, 2026

REPLY by Lirica Mondragon Villada re 8 Response,. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit BIA Appeal Receipt)(Beles, Robert) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#10

Jan 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/16/2026: In Respondents' 8 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents do not identify any provision of law or fact in this case that would substantively distinguish it from this court's decisions in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) and D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, Order, Doc. No. 12 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). Respondents note there are "slightly different" facts, specifically that Petitioner has a pending order of removal, but Respondents recognize there is currently no legal basis for detention different from those analyzed in Selis Tinoco and D.L.C. because "the order of removal is not yet final." (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Selis Tinoco and D.L.C., Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner Lirica Mondragon Villada shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on her, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 7 days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. Further, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than 1/23/2026, as to why this court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as this Order. Petitioner may file a response thereto by no later than 1/26/2026. Respondents may file a reply to Petitioner's response by no later than 1/27/2026. If the parties agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/16/2026)

Jan 16, 2026

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

#11

Jan 23, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Lee, Justin) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#12

Jan 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/26/2026: On 1/16/2026, the court issued an 10 Order granting Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and requiring Respondents to show cause why the court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the Temporary Restraining Order. On 1/23/2026, Respondents filed a 11 Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that they have nothing further to add to the arguments raised in their Opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order. The standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, for the same reasons as those stated in the 10 Order granting a Temporary Restraining Order, the court finds Petitioner has sufficiently shown that all four Winter factors weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the 10 Temporary Restraining Order and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

Jan 26, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#13

Feb 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/02/2026. In their opposition to the motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 8 ), respondents conceded that there are no legal issues to distinguish this case from the court's decisions cited in the court's prior minute order (ECF No. 6 ). The motion for a temporary restraining order was granted, and respondents were ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue on the same terms as the temporary restraining order. ECF No. 10 . In response, respondents requested the court rule on both the preliminary injunction and petition based on the filings already submitted (ECF No. 11 ) and a preliminary injunction was granted and the petition referred to the undersigned (ECF No. 12 ). Respondent is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen days why the petition should not be granted and a permanent injunction entered on the same grounds as the preliminary injunction. Petitioner may file a reply within seven days thereafter. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

Minute Order