Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00543

Jan 21, 2026

RECEIPT number ACAEDC-12790727 for $5.00 for Writ of Habeas Corpus from Girn, Sukhveer Singh. (Deputy Clerk OFR)

#3

Jan 22, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Gurpreet Singh. (Girn, Sukhveer) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#4

Jan 22, 2026

ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 2/26/2026. (Deputy Clerk RMG) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#5

Jan 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) The Court has reviewed the Petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and the related request for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 2). Petitioner asserts that he has been detained since November 13, 2025. Despite his detention more than two months ago, he fails to explain his delay in seeking his request for a temporary restraining order or why despite this delay, the Court should treat the situation as an emergency. Thus, the TRO request is untimely, and it is DENIED. Local Rule 231(b). The Court refers the matter to the assigned magistrate judge for a determination on the merits. The Court sets the following briefing schedule, which may be modified by the magistrate judge as needed. Respondents SHALL file their responsive pleading within 30 days. Petitioner may file a traverse no later than 15 days after the respondents file their brief.In the meantime, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Court ORDERS that Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States nor transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting the court's "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, the Court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and any subsequent order and finds that Petitioner has satisfied the factors governing the issuance of such preliminary relief signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on January 22, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

Jan 22, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#6

Jan 23, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#7

Jan 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) The Court has reviewed the renewed request for request for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 6). Previously, the Court denied the earlier filed motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 2) because it was untimely and because Petitioner failed to explain his delay and why despite his delay, the Court should treat the situation as an emergency. (Doc. 5) The next day, Petitioner filed another request for TRO now explaining that he wished, for apparent tactical reasons, to await a final decision in a different case, which was issued more than a month before his initial filing. (Doc. 6 at 2-3) He asserts that this delay was necessary also because there was no official lack of administrative remedy until a few days before his original TRO request. Even still this latter explanation makes little sense in light of the fact that he has made no showing that he has ever sought an administrative remedy. In any event, all of this was known to Petitioner at the time of his original TRO request, and none changes the fact that he delayed inordinately. His post hoc explanations offer only a glimpse into his tactics, rather than demonstrating that a true emergency now exists. Thus, the renewed TRO request (Doc. 6) is still untimely, and it is DENIED. Local Rule 231(b) signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on January 23, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Feb 22, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#10

Feb 23, 2026

Dismiss

#12

Feb 25, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

#13

Feb 25, 2026

Judgment