Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00454

#1

Jan 21, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Jan 21, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 2/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 01/21/2026)

Jan 21, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 2 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Anmol Singh. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

Jan 21, 2026

Service by Mail

Jan 21, 2026

RECEIPT number 100007002 for $5.00 for filing fee from Anmol Singh. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

#3

Jan 22, 2026

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

#4

Jan 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/22/2026: A review of the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus reveals that petitioner is seeking release from respondents' custody within 30 days unless they schedule a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Petitioner is directed to file a motion for temporary restraining order if they seek emergency relief. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

Jan 22, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Order served on Anmol Singh. Copy of 3 Order and 1 Petition served on the US Attorney and Federal Defender Habeas Appointment via email. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

Jan 22, 2026

Minute Order

Jan 22, 2026

Service by Mail

Jan 22, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Anmol Singh. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

#5

Jan 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/27/2026: The Court has been notified of Counsel's contact information, pursuant to the 1/22/2026 3 Order. Attorney Karen Pedraza is hereby APPOINTED pro hac vice as CJA counsel for petitioner. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket to reflect Attorney Karen Pedraza as counsel for petitioner in this matter. (Text Only Entry) (cc: Federal Defender Habeas Appointment) (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

Jan 27, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys

Feb 02, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Released, not in custody: 2 Prisoner New Case Documents sent to Anmol Singh. Notice of Change of Address due by 3/12/2026. (Deputy Clerk KEZ)

#6

Feb 06, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Shea Jon Kenny, GOVT for All Respondents. (Kenny, Shea) Modified on 2/11/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#7

Feb 06, 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: 02/06/2026)

#8

Feb 10, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#9

Feb 10, 2026

JOINT STATUS UPDATE and BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Anmol Singh. (Pedraza, Karen) Modified on 2/18/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#10

Feb 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/10/2026: On 1/20/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus. On 1/27/2026, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Peterson's 5 order, Attorney Pedraza was appointed as petitioner's counsel. On 2/4/2026, petitioner served a 8 motion for temporary restraining order, which was filed on 2/9/2026. Pro se filings by a represented party are improper. See Riel v. Warden, San Quentin State Prison, No. 2:01-cv-0507-MCE-DB, 2023 WL 2413825, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023); United States v. Brayshaw, No. 2:14-mc-00088-MCE-KJN, 2018 WL 534120, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (noting that under Rule 11, a party "cannot both be represented and file her own motions"). Therefore, the court denies the 8 motion for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to a properly filed motion. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

Feb 10, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

Feb 13, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#12

Feb 13, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#13

Feb 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/17/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 12 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 12 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 2/18/2026, by 5:00 PM, respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 12 motion for temporary restraining order. 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: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Minute Order

#14

Feb 18, 2026

RESPONSE to 11 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents; OPPOSITION to Preliminary Injunction and 12 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order . (Kenny, Shea) Modified on 2/19/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#15

Feb 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/2026: On 2/13/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 12 .) On 2/18/2026, respondents filed an opposition to the pending motion in which they argue that because petitioner entered the United States illegally, he is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (Doc. No. 14 at 1.) However, respondents concede that this case "poses the same legal and factual questions presented in" Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). (Id.) Respondents also submit on their briefing in opposition to any motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) Petitioner initially entered the United States in 4/2024 where he was briefly detained by immigration officials then released from custody and placed in the Intensive Supervision Program which required him to comply with regular check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Respondents subsequently re-detained petitioner on or about 8/2/2025 at his home in Sacramento, California without prior notice or an explanation. Having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner's re-detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds instructive the reasoning outlined in its prior order in Ayala Cajina, adopts the reasoning outlined therein, CONVERTs petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction, and GRANTS the motion as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody under the same conditions he was subject to prior to his re-detention on 8/2/2025; (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden of establishing that petitioner is either a danger to the community or flight risk. 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 first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 11 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#16

Feb 27, 2026

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

#17

Mar 03, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Katherine Theresa Lydon, GOVT added for All Respondents. Attorney Shea Jon Kenny, GOVT terminated. (Lydon, Katherine) Modified on 3/6/2026 (KS). (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#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. 15 .) Still pending is petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 .) 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. 1, be GRANTED; (2) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 15, be made permanent; and (3) 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 17, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#20

May 04, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#21

May 04, 2026

Judgment