Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00710

#1

Jan 27, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pamela Bondi, Current or Acting Field Office Director, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility by Carlos Rea Bustamante. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12817077) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Proposed Order)(Dunlavey, Wilson) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#2

Jan 27, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/2/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk OFR) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#3

Jan 27, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Kristi Noem,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#4

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. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#5

Jan 28, 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. (Dunlavey, Wilson) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#6

Jan 29, 2026

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

#7

Feb 05, 2026

RESPONSE to ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and ANSWER to the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 1/29/2026 Minute Order . (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 2/6/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 02/05/2026)

#8

Feb 09, 2026

REPLY by Carlos Rea Bustamante re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 7 Response. (Dunlavey, Wilson) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#9

Feb 12, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#10

Feb 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#11

Feb 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/13/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 9 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 9 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than Tuesday, 2/17/2026, by 5:00 PM, respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 9 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 Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), or Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 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: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order

#12

Feb 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/19/2026: (Text Only Entry): On 2/12/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 9 .) On 2/13/2026, the court issued an order directing respondents to file an opposition to petitioner's motion by Tuesday, 2/17/2026. (Doc. No. 11 .) Respondents had previously filed their designation of counsel for service on 1/27/2026. (Doc. No. 3 .) Nonetheless, to date, respondents have failed to file an opposition to the pending motion as directed. A review of the filings submitted by petitioner reveals that, he entered the United States on or about 9/4/2022, at which time he was contacted by immigration officials, served a notice to appear for removal proceedings, and paroled into the United States. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 9; [1-1] at 4, 35.) Petitioner was re-detained on 10/23/2025 when he appeared at a scheduled ICE check-in without notice of the reason for his re-detention or an opportunity to be heard. (Doc. No. 1 at 10.) The court finds analogous and persuasive the reasoning outlined in the court's decision in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release following his parole, and Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), where the court concluded that because the petitioner had previously been paroled, he could not be re-detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Accordingly, the court GRANTS petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as follows: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner under the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention on or about 10/23/2025; (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 an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate that petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. Under the circumstances of the case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed 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 JRM) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#13

Feb 19, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

Feb 19, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#14

Mar 06, 2026

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER re Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction by Carlos Rea Bustamante. (Dunlavey, Wilson) Modified on 3/10/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#15

Mar 16, 2026

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

#16

Mar 16, 2026

Judgment