Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00650

#1

Jan 26, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against ACTING FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden of California City Corrections Center by AVTAR SINGH. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12808214) (Glazer, Nicolette) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#2

Jan 26, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by AVTAR SINGH. (Glazer, Nicolette) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#3

Jan 26, 2026

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by AVTAR SINGH for attorney Karen Ohana to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 300, receipt number ACAEDC-12808231) (Glazer, Nicolette) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#4

Jan 26, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#5

Jan 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#6

Jan 26, 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. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#7

Jan 27, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT added for All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 2/3/2026 (KS). (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#8

Jan 30, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#9

Jan 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/30/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the 1 Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). The court intends to rule directly on the Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner's habeas petition] as law and justice require."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 2/3/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 2/4/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 12:00 PM on 2/2/2026. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#10

Feb 02, 2026

Order on Application for Pro Hac Vice

#11

Feb 02, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents Acting Field Office Director of the Los Angeles Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden of California City Corrections Center to 8 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 9 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#12

Feb 02, 2026

REPLY by Avtar Singh re 9 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,. (Ohana, Keren) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#13

Feb 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/3/2026: In Respondents' 11 Opposition to Petitioner's 8 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). However, Respondents acknowledge the decisions from this court in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) and D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and acknowledge that "there are no substantial factual or legal issues that render this case distinguishable from" those cases. (See Doc. No. 11 at 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Selis Tinoco and D.L.C., Petitioner's 8 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. Moreover, in light of Respondents' non-opposition to treating Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (See Doc. No.11 at 1), and given that the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction, Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms. Upon further review, the court will not rule directly on the Petition at this time. Therefore, this case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 02/03/2026)

Feb 03, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings