Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00302

#1

Jan 15, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chesnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by A. A.. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12763593) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice to Appear, # 2 Exhibit EAD, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Affidavit)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#2

Jan 15, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by A. A.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#3

Jan 15, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by A. A.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#4

Jan 15, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 2/20/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk CRM) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#5

Jan 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/15/2026: 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. Petitioners counsel declares they have served respondents with a copy of the petition, motion to proceed under a pseudonym, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers. Further no later than today, 1/15/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioners counsel is ordered to serve a copy of this order to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov and 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 Friday, 1/16/2026. 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 Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 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 PAB) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#6

Jan 15, 2026

AFFIDAVIT re 5 Minute Order,,,,,,,, Proof of Service by A. A.. (Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

Jan 15, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Jan 16, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT added for All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 1/20/2026 (KS). (Entered: 01/16/2026)

#8

Jan 16, 2026

RESPONSE to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 1/20/2026 (KS). (Entered: 01/16/2026)

#9

Jan 18, 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. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#10

Jan 18, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#11

Jan 19, 2026

[VACATED pursuant to 14 Order] MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/19/2026: (Text Only Entry); GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 2 Motion for TRO; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 3 Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym.On 1/15/2026, 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 petitioner's unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. No. 3 ) 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 3-4). 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 similar circumstances). In petitioner's motion to proceed pseudonymously, he also requests that the court order the parties to redact any names or identifying information relating to him and his family, and to limit the sharing of this information to what is reasonably necessary for the litigation. (Doc. No. 3 at 6-7.) However, petitioner has not cited any authority or arguments in support of these additional requests. Accordingly, the court denies those additional requests without prejudice to their properly supported renewal. When setting the briefing schedule for respondents' opposition to petitioner's 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 court's decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release, and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), in which the court concluded that previously releasing the petitioner on his own recognizance created a reliance interest such that the petitioner was entitled to the due process available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, petitioner was detained by immigration authorities when he entered the United States and was subsequently released on his own recognizance. (Doc. No. 1 at 6.) Petitioner was re-detained at a scheduled Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in on December 23, 2025, without notice or a hearing regarding the justification for his re-detention. (Id. at 7.) On 1/16/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order. Respondents concede therein that this matter is not substantively distinguishable from Ayala Cajina. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) Respondents did not address whether the matter is substantively distinguishable from O.A.C.S., or other similar cases previously decided by this court. (Id.) Respondents also state that they do not oppose converting petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Id.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Ayala Cajina and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED in part, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his December 23, 2025, re-detention; and (2) respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying petitioner's re-detention. Petitioner's request that the court order that his property be returned to him is DENIED without prejudice as it does not appear ripe. (Doc. No. 2 at 21.) 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 habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk CGH) Modified on 1/21/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 01/19/2026)

#12

Jan 19, 2026

RESPONSE to 11 Order of Immediate Release and REQUEST to Dismiss Petition or Transfer to the Southern District of California by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 1/22/2026 (KS). (Entered: 01/19/2026)

Jan 19, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Pseudonym AND Order on Motion for TRO

#13

Jan 20, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#14

Jan 21, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND ~Util - Case Transferred Out - District

Jan 23, 2026

OTHER COURT CASE NUMBER from Southern District of California case number 3:26-cv-00397. (Deputy Clerk RMG)