Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00440

#1

Jan 18, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by J. S.. (Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#2

Jan 18, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by J. S.. Attorney Wiley, Joye added. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#3

Jan 18, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by J. S.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit TRO checklist)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#4

Jan 18, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by J. S. re 2 MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM, 3 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

#5

Jan 18, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by J. S.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 NTA, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 Proof of I589 filing)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/18/2026)

Jan 18, 2026

RECEIPT number ACAEDC-12775623 for $5.00 fbo J.S. from Joye Wiley. (Deputy Clerk AML)

#6

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 SSA) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#7

Jan 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 01/20/2026: The Court has reviewed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5 ) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 3 ). The issues raised therein appear to mirror those previously addressed by the Court in many prior cases. See Singh v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01543-DJC-SCR; Mariagua v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01744-DJC-CSK; Ortega v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01663-DJC-CKD. On or before January 22, 2026, Respondents are ordered to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinct from the Court's prior orders in the cases listed above and would justify denial of a preliminary injunction. Respondents should also state whether they oppose this Court converting the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Petitioner may follow a reply on or before January 23, 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. Petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED to send a copy of the petition (ECF No. 5 ), the motion (ECF No. 3 ), and provide the Petitioner's full name and A number to the US Attorney's Office by January 20, 2026 at 6:00 P.M., at their email usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. [TEXT ONLY ORDER] (Deputy Clerk CRN) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#8

Jan 20, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

Jan 20, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#9

Jan 22, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT added for All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#10

Jan 22, 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: 01/22/2026)

#11

Jan 22, 2026

RESPONSE to 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 1/27/2026 (KS). (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#12

Jan 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 1/23/2026: Petitioner J.S.'s unopposed motion to proceed under pseudonym (ECF No. 2 ) is GRANTED as Petitioner has adequately alleged the sensitive and highly personal nature of the facts at issue in his petition, the prejudice to Respondents appears to be minimal, and the public's interest in open judicial proceedings is not meaningfully impaired by granting Petitioner's Motion. See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). In light of Respondents' concession that there are no factual or legal issues in this case that render this case distinct from the prior cases cited in the Court's previous minute order (see ECF No. 11 at 1) and for the reasons stated in the orders in those prior cases (see ECF No. 7 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 3 ) is converted to a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner J.S. from their custody. Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on him, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice describing the change of circumstances necessitating his arrest and detention, and a timely hearing. At any such hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner shall be allowed to have his counsel present. The merits of this matter are REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial proceedings. [TEXT ONLY ORDER] (Deputy Clerk GJM) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

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

#13

Jan 27, 2026

Request

#14

Feb 01, 2026

REPLY and OPPOSITION to 13 Request for 180-Days to Answer or File Return by Petitioner J. S. (Wiley, Joye) Modified on 2/6/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/01/2026)

#15

Feb 20, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#16

Mar 06, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS and RESPONSE to 15 Order by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 3/10/2026 (KS). (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#17

Mar 13, 2026

REPLY and OPPOSITION to 16 Motion to Dismiss by J. S. (Wiley, Joye) Modified on 3/17/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#18

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. 12 .) Still pending are petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 5, and respondents' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, in which respondents argue that the petition should be dismissed as moot because of the injunctive relief already issued. "Preliminary injunctions, however, do not conclusively resolve legal disputes." Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 200 (2025). Where, as here, a petitioner has been released because of injunctive relief, courts have found that the petitioner's claims are still justiciable. See Garro Pinchi v. Noem, 813 F. Supp. 3d 973, 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citing Lackey, 604 U.S. at 200). Accordingly, I find that the petition continues to present a live controversy. 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. 5, be GRANTED; (2) respondents' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, be DENIED; (3) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 12, be made permanent; and (4) 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

#19

Apr 20, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#20

Apr 30, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND Order on Motion to Dismiss

#21

Apr 30, 2026

Judgment