Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00855

#1

Feb 02, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, US Department of Homeland Security by Lovepreet Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12841602) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Terkiana, Jagbir) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#2

Feb 02, 2026

MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Lovepreet Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum of Law-TRO, # 2 TRO Checklist)(Terkiana, Jagbir) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#3

Feb 02, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

Feb 02, 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 Todd M. Lyons,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Kristi Noem,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#5

Feb 02, 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: 02/02/2026)

#6

Feb 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/2/2026: (Text Only Entry). Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 2 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 2/3/2026, 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 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 2/4/2026. 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), Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 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: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 03, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Feb 03, 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: 02/03/2026)

#9

Feb 03, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#10

Feb 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/5/2026: On 2/2/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 2/2/2026, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish this case from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent decisions in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), and Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release. Here, petitioner entered the United States on 4/27/2023, he was initially detained and subsequently released on 9/24/2023. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 20.) Petitioner was re-detained on 12/10/2025 at a scheduled immigration check-in. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) On 2/3/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that they are not aware of distinguishing legal argument or material factual differences between this case and the court's prior order. (Doc. No. 7 at 1). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Ayala Cajina and Perez, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) 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 Carolyn K. Delaney for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

Feb 05, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO