Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00731

#1

Jan 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Anmoldeep Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12824165) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ahluwalia, Deepak) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#2

Jan 28, 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 SSA) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#3

Jan 28, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Jonathan Crawford,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Williams, Jonathan) (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. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#5

Feb 02, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#6

Feb 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/3/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the 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 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 5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 2/5/2026. 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 2/6/2026. 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 5:00 PM on 2/3/2026. 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: 02/03/2026)

Feb 03, 2026

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

#7

Feb 04, 2026

RESPONSE by Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Jonathan Crawford, Kristi Noem to 6 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#8

Feb 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/4/2026: In Respondents' 7 Opposition to Petitioner's 5 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents continue to oppose issuance of a temporary restraining order. 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 5 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 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. 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. 7 ), 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 RAA) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

Feb 04, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Preliminary Injunction