Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00558

#1

Jan 22, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Jaiveer Signh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12797490) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Terkiana, Jagbir) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#2

Jan 22, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jaiveer Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(Terkiana, Jagbir) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#3

Jan 23, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 2/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#4

Jan 23, 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. (Terkiana, Jagbir) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#5

Jan 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/26/2026: (Text Only Entry).Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 2 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than today, 1/26/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, 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 for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 1/27/2026. 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 CGH) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#6

Jan 26, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

Jan 26, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Jan 27, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Charles Campbell, GOVT for All Respondents. (Campbell, Charles) Modified on 1/28/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#8

Jan 27, 2026

Extension of Time

#9

Jan 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/28/2026: On 1/22/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 1/27/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to the motion. Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the undersigned's previous orders in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in their continued release, and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), in which the court concluded that previously releasing the petitioner on his own recognizance created a reliance interest such that the petitioner was entitled to the due process available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, as in Ayala Cajina and O.A.C.S., petitioner previously encountered immigration authorities, was detained by those authorities, and was later released on his own recognizance. (Doc. No. 1 at 2-3.) Moreover, the court previously directed respondents to address whether "they oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction" (Doc. No. 5 ) and respondents have failed to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Ayala Cajina and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his re-detention on October 14, 2025; 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-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator. 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. This action is hereby REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

Feb 09, 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: 02/09/2026)

#11

Jun 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 6/18/2026: In light of the referral of petitioner's § 2241 petition that is pending before the Court, the parties are directed to submit any additional briefs on the merits, or any stipulation as to how this petition should be resolved, within 14 days from the date of this order. Following expiration of the deadline set herein, the § 2241 petition will be deemed submitted on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). In light of this briefing order, Respondents' request for 180 days to file a return 8 is DENIED. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

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

#12

Jul 20, 2026

Findings and Recommendations