Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00393

#1

Jan 19, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Tonya Andrews, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by Rahul Rahul. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12775873) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 01/19/2026)

#2

Jan 19, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Rahul Rahul. (Attachments: # 1 Notice, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 01/19/2026)

#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 EF) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

#4

Jan 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/20/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 5:00 PM on 1/22/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before 1/23/2026. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 5:00 PM on 1/20/2026. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

Jan 20, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#5

Jan 22, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 1/23/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#6

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)

#7

Jan 22, 2026

RESPONSE and OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 1/23/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#8

Jan 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/23/2026: In Respondents' 7 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). However, Respondents acknowledge the decisions from this court in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) and D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and acknowledge that this case is not substantively distinguishable from D.L.C. (See Doc. No. 7 at 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in D.L.C., Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. Further, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than 1/30/2026, as to why this court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as this Order. Petitioner may file a response thereto by no later than 2/2/2026. Respondents may file a reply to Petitioner's response by no later than 2/4/2026. If the parties agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#9

Jan 29, 2026

RESPONSE to 1/29/2026 Minute Order (Doc. No. 8); NON-OPPOSITION to Conversion of TRO into Preliminary Injunction; and REQUEST for 180-Day Extension filed by Tonya Andrews, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, and Kristi Noem. (Yu, Jonathan) (Docket Text Modified on 1/29/2026 by CRS.) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#10

Jan 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued on 1/29/2026 by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: On 1/23/2026, the court issued an 8 Order granting Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and requiring Respondents to show cause why the court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the Temporary Restraining Order. On 1/29/2026, Respondents filed a 9 Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that they have "do not oppose this Court converting the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction." The standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, for the same reasons as those stated in the 8 Order granting a Temporary Restraining Order, the court finds Petitioner has sufficiently shown that all four Winter factors weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the 8 Temporary Restraining Order and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, including consideration of Respondents' 9 Request regarding their deadline to respond to the Habeas Petition. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#11

Feb 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 2/23/2026: Respondents' request for a 180-day extension is denied. (ECF No. 9 .) The Court will, however, provide the parties with additional time to evaluate whether additional briefing is needed to decide the petition on the merits. If additional briefing is needed to decide the petition on the merits, within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties must so inform the Court. If the parties do not inform the Court by this deadline that additional briefing is needed to decide the petition on the merits, the Court will interpret this as confirmation that the petition may be decided on the merits based on the record currently before the court without any additional briefing(Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk AW) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#12

Mar 26, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#13

Apr 02, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#14

Apr 07, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations

#15

Apr 07, 2026

Judgment