Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00375

#1

Jan 18, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Gurdeep Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12775515) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A)(Shah, Nilima) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#2

Jan 18, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Gurdeep Singh. (Attachments: # 1 TRO Checklist)(Shah, Nilima) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#3

Jan 20, 2026

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

#5

Jan 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/20/2026: (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. Further, no later than tomorrow, 1/21/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov; and (2) 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 Thursday, 1/22/2026. 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

#6

Jan 21, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#7

Jan 21, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Anthony Andrews for Sergio Albarran,Anthony Andrews for Pamela Bondi,Anthony Andrews for Todd Lyons,Anthony Andrews for Kristi Noem,Anthony Andrews for Minga Wofford (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#8

Jan 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. (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#9

Jan 22, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford to 5 Minute Order,,,,,,,,, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Motion for TRO. (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#10

Jan 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/23/2026: In respondents' opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ), respondents concede that "[t]here appears to be no substantive distinction between this case and the other cases the Court cited in its minute order such as" 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 9 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. at 1-2.) 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 October 20, 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 Allison Claire for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

Jan 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 01/26/2026. In their return to habeas petition and opposition to motions for injunctive relief (ECF No. 9 ), respondents concede that there are no legal or factual issues to distinguish this case from the court's decisions cited in the court's prior minute order (ECF No. 5 ). Respondents also requested that if the preliminary injunction was granted that the court also grant the petition on the same grounds (ECF No. 9 ). Petitioner has now been granted a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10 ). Respondents are 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: 01/26/2026)

Jan 26, 2026

Minute Order

#12

Feb 02, 2026

RESPONSE to 11 Order to Show Cause by All Respondents. (Andrews, Anthony) Modified on 2/6/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#13

Feb 12, 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: 02/12/2026)