Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00825

#1

Jan 30, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Jan 30, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jagandeep Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum in support of TRO, # 2 Exhibit Evidence showing Petitioner is not a danger or flight risk, # 3 Exhibit Second IJ Order, # 4 Exhibit First IJ order, # 5 Proposed Order TRO Proposed Order)(Dhariwal, Kuldip) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#3

Jan 30, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

Jan 30, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Orestes Cruz,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#5

Jan 30, 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: 01/30/2026)

#6

Feb 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on February 2, 2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. In his Motion, Petitioner alleges that he was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") in December 2025, after he overstayed his Nonimmigrant Visa. (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) Petitioner further alleges that on January 13, 2026, an Immigration Judge denied Petitioner's request for bond, finding that he was a flight risk. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner contends that at that bond hearing, the Immigration Judge "incorrectly plac[ed] the burden on the Petitioner, instead of the Department of Homeland Security," and Petitioner requests that the court order his immediate release, or in the alternative, order an individualized bond hearing with a different Immigration Judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 2, 15.) The court hereby DENIES Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order for two reasons. First, because Petitioner has not previously been detained by ICE and released on bond, he is not entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing. See Ngugi v. Lyons, No. 1:25-cv-01783-KES-EPG, 2026 WL 35610 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026) (finding that petitioner was not entitled to pre-deprivation hearing where he had not previously been detained by ICE). Petitioner is entitled to a prompt individualized bond hearing, which Petitioner acknowledges he received on January 13, 2026. (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) Second, because Petitioner has not appealed the denial or his request for bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals, his Motion in this court is premature. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of immigration habeas petition, because petitioner "should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to the [Board of Immigration Appeals] before asking the federal court to review the [immigration judge's] decision." While Petitioner now challenges whether the Government submitted sufficient evidence to the Immigration Judge for the Immigration Judge to deny Petitioner's request for release on bond, Petitioner has not provided a recording or transcript of the hearing, nor the Government's argument and evidence supporting denial of bond. The Board of Immigration Appeals is better equipped to determine the sufficiency of the evidence on the full record. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

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

#7

Feb 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/10/2026. Respondent is directed to file an answer/return within 14 days from the date of this order. Respondent shall include with the answer/return any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the application. Petitioner's reply/traverse, if any, is due within 7 days after being served a copy of respondent's answer/return. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

Feb 10, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Feb 23, 2026

Dismiss

#9

Mar 02, 2026

RESPONSE by Jagandeep Singh to 8 Motion to Dismiss. (Dhariwal, Kuldip) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#10

Mar 20, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#11

Mar 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/24/2026: Respondents shall file a response to Petitioner's 10 Renewed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by no later than 12:00 PM on 3/27/2026. Petitioner shall file a reply by no later than 3/31/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

Mar 24, 2026

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

#12

Mar 26, 2026

RESPONSE by Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes Cruz, Kristi Noem to 11 Minute Order,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,. (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#13

Mar 26, 2026

RESPONSE by Jagandeep Singh to 12 Response. (Dhariwal, Kuldip) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#14

Mar 31, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/31/2026: On 3/20/2026, Petitioner filed a 10 renewed motion for a temporary restraining order based on allegations of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and substantial burdens on Petitioner's sincerely held religious beliefs. However, such challenges to the conditions of confinement are not cognizable in habeas actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2023); see also Arauco Mendoza v. Chestnut et al., 1:26-cv-00627-KES-SAB, Doc. No. 9 (Feb. 5, 2026) (denying motion for a temporary restraining other where the petitioner sought "immediate release based on her assertion that she has received constitutionally-deficient medical care while in civil immigration detention"). Petitioner has therefore not met his burden of showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his habeas claims, as is required for a temporary restraining order. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Accordingly, Petitioner's 10 renewed motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO