Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00726

#1

Jan 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Marcos Mendoza Mendoza. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12821727) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Sigal, Josh) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#2

Jan 28, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#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 LAO) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#4

Jan 28, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Brittany Gunter for Pamela Bondi,Brittany Gunter for Orestes Cruz,Brittany Gunter for Todd Lyons,Brittany Gunter for Kristi Noem,Brittany Gunter for Wanda Wilson (Gunter, Brittany) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#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. (Gunter, Brittany) (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. (Sigal, Josh) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#7

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 Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 1/30/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before 2/2/2026. 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 9:00 AM on 1/29/2026. 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: 01/28/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

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

#8

Jan 30, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#9

Feb 02, 2026

REPLY by Marcos Mendoza Mendoza re 8 Opposition to Motion. (Sigal, Josh) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#10

Feb 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/3/2026: In Respondents' 8 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Respondents differentiate this case from the recent decisions by this court in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), by arguing that (1) Petitioner entered the United States without inspection, unlike the Petitioners in Selis Tinoco and D.L.C., who were detained upon their arrival and released pending adjudication of their removal proceedings; and (2) Petitioner's thirty-year-old convictions are more concerning than the criminal history in Selis Tinoco. (See Doc. No. 8 at 3-4.) First, Respondents do not cite any legal authority supporting their contention that Petitioner's detention status is different under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 because he was not detained upon entry to the United States. This court joins the numerous other courts in this district who have found that under § 1226, a noncitizen Petitioner who has resided in the United States for an extended period of time is entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing, regardless of whether they entered the United States without inspection. See, e.g., Crispin M.C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01487-KES-HBK, 2026 WL 70553, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026) (finding that petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that he was entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing despite having entered the United States without inspection twenty-five years prior); Perez Hernandez v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01388-JLT-EPG, 2025 WL 3765162 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2025) (same as to petitioner who had resided in the United States for twenty years). Second, any argument as to whether a Petitioner's arrest record constituted changed circumstances justifying the Petitioner's detention is properly directed to an Immigration Judge in a pre-deprivation bond hearing. See Selis Tinoco, 2025 WL 3567862 at *6. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Selis Tinoco and D.L.C., Petitioner's 2 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. 8), 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. 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