Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00718

#1

Jan 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Tonya Andrews, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by LNU Neeraj. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12820921) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil coversheet, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit NTA-old, # 4 Exhibit NTA-new, # 5 Exhibit Arrest warrant)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#2

Jan 28, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by LNU Neeraj. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memo, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed order)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#3

Jan 28, 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: 01/28/2026)

#4

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. (Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#5

Jan 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/28/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. In that Motion, Petitioner states he was detained on 10/15/2025, over 90 days before filing that Motion. Petitioner does not explain why he did not seek injunctive relief sooner. Notably, Local Rule 231(b) states: "In considering a motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court will consider whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary restraining order." Accordingly, the court DENIES Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, without prejudice, and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 302(c). (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#6

Jan 28, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Joshua Banister, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Joshua Banister, GOVT for Tonya Andrews,Joshua Banister, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Joshua Banister, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Joshua Banister, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Banister, Joshua) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#7

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. (Banister, Joshua) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Jan 29, 2026

Preliminary Injunction

#9

Feb 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/2/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 8 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count Two 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 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the 8 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 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 by 2/12/2026. 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 2/23/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count Two 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 5:00 P.M. 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: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

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

#10

Feb 12, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#11

Feb 12, 2026

REPLY in Support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Neeraj Lnu. (Gahra, Manpreet) (Docket Text Modified on 2/12/2026 by CRS.) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#12

Feb 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/12/2026: In Respondents' 10 Response to Petitioner's 8 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Respondents continue to oppose issuance of a Preliminary Injunction. However, Respondents do not identify any material distinction between this case and the court's previous decisions in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and other cases addressing the same issue presented here. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Labrador, Selis Tinoco, and D.L.C., Petitioner's 8 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody; (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 7 days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. This case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

Feb 12, 2026

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