Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00223

#1

Jan 12, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Jan 12, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Julio Javier Blanco Betin. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 TRO Checklist, # 6 TRO Proposed Order, # 7 PI Proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

#3

Jan 12, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 2/17/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk EF) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

#4

Jan 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/13/2026: 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 1/15/2026. 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 1/16/2026. 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 5:00 PM on 1/13/2026. 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: 01/13/2026)

#5

Jan 13, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

Jan 13, 2026

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

#6

Jan 15, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, re Minute Order, ECF No. 4. Attorney Lee, Justin added. (Lee, Justin) Modified on 1/16/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#7

Jan 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/16/2026: In Respondents' 6 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). However, Respondents acknowledge the decisions from this court 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), and acknowledge that "[t]his matter is not substantively distinguishably from the Court's prior precedent." Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in D.L.C., Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; (2) and (3) If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. Further, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than 1/21/2026, 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 1/23/2026. Respondents may file a reply to Petitioner's response by no later than 1/26/2026. 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

#8

Jan 21, 2026

OPPOSITION to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by All Respondents. (Lee, Justin) Modified on 1/26/2026 (KS). (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#9

Jan 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued on 1/22/2026 by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: On 1/16/2026, the court issued an 7 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 1/21/2026, Respondents filed a 8 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 7 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 7 Temporary Restraining Order and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

Jan 22, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#10

Feb 21, 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. (Anonymous) (Entered: 02/21/2026)

#11

Feb 26, 2026

Order

#12

Apr 13, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text only) signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/13/2026: After petitioner initiated this action, the court granted injunctive relief by way of ordering petitioner's release. (ECF No. 7 .) Still pending is petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 .) The primary dispute between the parties is whether re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights. I have addressed this issue previously and have consistently found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates a noncitizen's due process rights. See, e.g., Amarillo v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-1623-JDP, 2026 WL 279856 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026). After considering the parties' filings, and for the reasons stated in Amarillo and similar cases, I find that petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated and hereby RECOMMEND the following: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be GRANTED; (2) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 9, be made permanent; and (3) the Clerk of Court be ordered to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response shall be served and filed within seven days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

Apr 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#13

Apr 15, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#14

Apr 24, 2026

RESPONSE to 13 Objections to Findings and Recommendations by Julio Javier Blanco Betin. (Salgado, Mario) Modified on 5/5/2026 (KS). (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#15

Jul 23, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#16

Jul 23, 2026

Judgment