Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00615

#1

Jan 25, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by Dharm Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12804872) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 01/25/2026)

#2

Jan 25, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Dharm Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Notice, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 01/25/2026)

#3

Jan 26, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/2/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk EF) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#4

Jan 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/26/2026: 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 tomorrow, 1/27/2026, 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 Wednesday, 1/28/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 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: 01/26/2026)

#5

Jan 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#6

Jan 26, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Dharm Singh re 4 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,. (Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#7

Jan 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#8

Jan 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/26/2026: 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 tomorrow, 1/27/2026, 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 Wednesday, 1/28/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 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: 01/26/2026)

Jan 26, 2026

Minute Order

#9

Jan 27, 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. (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#10

Jan 28, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#11

Jan 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/29/2026: On 1/25/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2 .) The following day, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). (Doc. No. 8 .) Rather than follow the court's direction, respondents have elected to file a motion to dismiss petitioner's petition for writ of habeas of corpus, arguing that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 10 .) Respondents state therein that they acknowledge the court's 1/26/2026 order, but make no mention of this court's decisions in Perez or O.A.C.S., nor do they make any attempt to distinguish the current case from the court's prior orders to which they were directed. (Id. at 1.) The court will construe respondents' failure to address Perez or O.A.C.S. as a concession that no provision of law or fact in this case distinguishes it from the court's prior decisions. Further, the court declines to rule on respondents' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10 ) at this time. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Perez and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his 11/24/2025 re-detention; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying petitioner's re-detention. 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 parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a proposed joint briefing schedule with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO