Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00711

#1

Jan 27, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Ashu LNU. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12817026) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ahluwalia, Deepak) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#2

Jan 27, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Ashu LNU. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 TRO Motion, # 3 Affidavit)(Ahluwalia, Deepak) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#3

Jan 27, 2026

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

#4

Jan 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/27/2026: 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, 1/28/2026, 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 Thursday, 1/29/2026. 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: 01/27/2026)

Jan 27, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Jan 28, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 1/29/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#6

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. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#7

Jan 28, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, REQUEST for 180-DAY PERIOD of TIME to respond to 1 Petition by All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 1/29/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#8

Jan 28, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 1/29/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#9

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. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#10

Jan 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/29/2026: (Text Only Entry); On 1/27/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). The same day, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish this case from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent 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. (Doc. No. 4 .) On 1/28/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that they "do not have legal arguments to distinguish this case from" the court's prior orders, "nor do Respondents identify material factual differences between this case and those identified by the Court[.]" (Id. at 1.) Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Id.) 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 CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and 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 October 2025, detention; (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 petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO