Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00399

#1

Jan 17, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by S. S. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12775188) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice to Appear, # 2 Exhibit Order of Release on OR, # 3 Exhibit Employment Authorization Document, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet, # 5 Proof of Service)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/17/2026)

#2

Jan 17, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by S. S. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 TRO checklist)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/17/2026)

#3

Jan 17, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by S. S. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/17/2026)

#4

Jan 17, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by S. S. re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Motion for TRO, 3 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym. (Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 01/17/2026)

#5

Jan 20, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 2/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk AJB) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#6

Jan 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/20/2026: (Text Only Entry). 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 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. 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 tomorrow, 1/21/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 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. Furthermore, respondents are directed to indicate in their opposition whether they oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into 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 APM) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

Jan 20, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Jan 21, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Michael G. Tierney for All Respondents. (Tierney, Michael) Modified on 1/22/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#8

Jan 21, 2026

Extension of Time

#9

Jan 21, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/21/2026: (Text Only Entry). On 1/21/2026, respondents filed a motion for extension of time to file their opposition to petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents represent that petitioner's counsel agreed to this extension. Pursuant to that stipulation and good cause appearing, respondents shall file their opposition to petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order by 1/22/2026 at 5 p.m. (Deputy Clerk APM) (Entered: 01/21/2026)

Jan 21, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Jan 22, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT for All Respondents. Attorney Michael G. Tierney terminated. (Hemesath, Audrey) Modified on 1/23/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#11

Jan 22, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and OPPOSITION 2 Motion for TRO by All Respondents. (Hemesath, Audrey) Modified on 1/23/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#12

Jan 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/23/2026: The court GRANTS petitioner's motion to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. No. 3 ) because petitioner argues that his case "presents sensitive facts around political activities and persecution suffered by" petitioner and that there is a "risk to Petitioner and his family of harassment and retaliation," and respondents have not opposed the motion. (Doc. Nos. 3 at 2-3; 11 ); 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). Further, in respondents' opposition (Doc. No. 11 ) to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ), respondents concede that "this matter does not contain legal or factual issues distinct from the Court's previous opinions" in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). (Doc. No 11 at 2.) Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as 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 Perez 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, 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 18, 2025 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. 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 San C. Riordan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

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