Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00741

#1

Jan 28, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by M. M.. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12825617) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Notice to Appear, # 2 Exhibit 2 Work Permit, # 3 E-Filing Notice 3 Friend declaration, # 4 Exhibit TRO checklist)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#2

Jan 28, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by M. M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#3

Jan 28, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by M. M.. (Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#4

Jan 28, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by M. M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit TRO checklist)(Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#5

Jan 29, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/5/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk OFR) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#6

Jan 29, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#7

Jan 29, 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. (Anonymous) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#8

Jan 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/29/2026: (Text Only Entry). Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 4 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 4 motion for a temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 1/30/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion to proceed under a pseudonym, motion for a temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorney's 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 4 motion for a temporary restraining order and 2 motion to proceed under a pseudonym by 5:00 PM on Monday, 2/2/2026. 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 Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 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 CAL) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#9

Jan 29, 2026

RESPONSE to 8 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Jan 30, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by M. M. re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM, 4 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Wiley, Joye) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#11

Feb 01, 2026

REPLY to 9 Opposition and Request for 180 Days by M. M. (Wiley, Joye) Modified on 2/5/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/01/2026)

#12

Feb 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/3/2026: (Text Only Entry); GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym; GRANTING 4 Motion for TRO.On 1/28/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ) and a motion to proceed pseudonymously (Doc. No. 2 ). The court GRANTS petitioner's unopposed motion to proceed pseudonymously because he has alleged that disclosure of his identity could lead to him suffering retaliatory harm. (Doc. No. 2 at 4-5.) See Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) ("To determine whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously when the opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five factors[.]") (emphasis added); R.B.A. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-00562-KKE, 2025 WL 1285852, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2025) (finding "sufficient grounds for Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously" under similar circumstances). In moving to proceed pseudonymously, petitioner also requests a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) The court does not address the request for a protective order at this time as such matters are appropriately referred to the assigned magistrate judge under the Local Rules. When setting the briefing schedule for respondents' opposition, the court directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the circumstances addressed in this court's decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release, and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), in which the court concluded that previously releasing the petitioner on his own recognizance created a reliance interest such that the petitioner was entitled to the due process available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, petitioner entered the United States on 3/23/2023, was detained, and subsequently released on 3/27/2023 with a notice to appear for removal proceedings. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 6; [1-1] at 2.) Petitioner was re-detained on 12/10/2025, without notice or a hearing, when he appeared for a scheduled immigration check-in. (Id. at 7.) On 1/29/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that there are no factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinct from the court's prior orders. (Doc. No. 9 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 Ayala Cajina and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ) 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 12/10/2025 re-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 Edmund F. Brennan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 02/03/2026)

Feb 03, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Pseudonym AND Order on Motion for TRO

#13

Feb 09, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#14

Feb 19, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 2/20/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 02/19/2026)