Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00417

#1

Jan 19, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by K. T.. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12776688) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/19/2026)

#2

Jan 19, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by K. T.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/19/2026)

#3

Jan 19, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#4

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)

#6

Jan 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/20/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 3 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 3 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 to proceed under a pseudonym, 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 to proceed under a pseudonym and 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on 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 decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 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 PAB) (Entered: 01/20/2026)

Jan 20, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Jan 21, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#8

Jan 21, 2026

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

#9

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)

#10

Jan 21, 2026

RETURN to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and OPPOSITION to Motions for Injunctive Relief by All Respondents. (Andrews, Anthony) Modified on 1/22/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/21/2026)

#11

Jan 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/22/2026: (Text Only Entry); On 1/19/2026, petitioner filed motions to proceed pseudonymously (Doc. No. 2 ) and for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 3 ). On 1/20/2026, the court issued an order directing respondents to file written opposition to both motions, and in that opposition, to "substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable." (Doc. No. 6 ). In their opposition, respondents have stated that "[t]here appears to be no substantive distinction between this case and the case the Court cited in its minute order, Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01556 and other similar cases decided by this Court." (Doc. No. 10 at 1). Respondents have indicated that they do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 1-2). Moreover, respondents have not stated any opposition to petitioner's motion to proceed under pseudonym under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the court GRANTS petitioner's unopposed motion to proceed pseudonymously (Doc. No. 2 ) because petitioner has alleged that his case presents sensitive facts involving the abuse that he experienced and escaped from in his home country. See (Id. at 3); 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). In petitioner's motion to proceed pseudonymously, he also requests that the court order the parties to redact any names or identifiable information relating to him and his family, and to limit the sharing of this information to what is reasonably necessary for the litigation. (Doc. No. 2 at 6-7.) However, petitioner has not cited any authority or arguments in support of these additional requests. Accordingly, the court denies those additional requests without prejudice to their renewal in a properly supported motion. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in Ayala Cajina, 2025 WL 3251083, at *2-6, the court CONVERTS petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTS the motion as follows: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his 1/2/2026 re-detention; 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-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden of establishing that petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk. Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order requesting the court to enjoin respondents from withholding petitioner's documents and possessions from him is DENIED without prejudice as it does not appear to be ripe. (Doc. No. 3 at 23). Under the circumstances of the 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: 01/22/2026)

Jan 22, 2026

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