Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00320

#1

Jan 15, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, CoreCivic, Inc., Kristi Noem by Mayra Alejandra Lopez Gallegos. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12768391) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#2

Jan 15, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Mayra Alejandra Lopez Gallegos. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 TRO Checklist, # 6 TRO Proposed Order, # 7 PI Proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#3

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 JJD) (Entered: 01/15/2026)

#4

Jan 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/16/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's 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 court's 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. Petitioner's counsel declares they have served respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers. (Doc. No. [2-2].) No later than today, 1/16/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is ordered to serve a copy of this order to the United States Attorney's 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 by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 1/20/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's 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. Further, respondents are DIRECTED to address petitioner's position that this motion for temporary restraining order be treated as a motion for preliminary injunction. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/16/2026)

#5

Jan 16, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

Jan 16, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Jan 18, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 1/20/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#7

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)

#8

Jan 20, 2026

REPLY by Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Kristi Noem re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 4 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#9

Jan 21, 2026

REPLY to 8 Response by Mayra Alejandra Lopez Gallegos. (Salgado, Mario) Modified on 1/22/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#10

Jan 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/23/2026: On 1/15/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 1/16/2026, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decision in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), where the court concluded that petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that he obtained a liberty interest in his continued release when he was released on parole and that his continued detention without written notice and a hearing was unlawful. Here, petitioner was detained by immigration authorities when she entered the United States and was paroled on 8/7/2023. (Doc. No. [2-4] at 8.) Petitioner was re-detained on 10/14/2025 without written notice of the reason for her re-detention or an opportunity to be heard. (Id. at 7.) On 1/20/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order. Respondents argue therein that this case is different from Rocha Chavarria because petitioner was detained after her parole expired. (Id. at 1-2.) Respondents also state that they are amenable to treating petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order as a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Id. at 2.) The court is not persuaded that the expiration of petitioner's parole under § 1182(d)(5) is a substantive difference because "numerous courts in the Ninth Circuit have found that when a noncitizen is paroled under that section, his liberty interest does not expire along with his parole." D.L.C., v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP (HC), 2026 WL 145646, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026) (collecting cases) (internal quotation omitted). The court therefore concludes that petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her re-detention violated due process because she maintained a liberty interest in her continued release. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above and based upon the court's reasoning in Rocha Chavarria, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondent's custody on the same conditions that governed her release immediately prior to her re-detention on 10/14/2025; 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 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

Jan 27, 2026

Request