Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00856

#1

Feb 02, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Tonya Andrews, Pamela Bondi, Fresno Field Office Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by Shamsher Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12842086) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Ruprell, Jyoti) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#2

Feb 02, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Shamsher Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed order, # 3 Declaration Declaration)(Ruprell, Jyoti) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#3

Feb 02, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED: Consent or Decline due by 3/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#4

Feb 02, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Brittany Gunter for Sergio Albarran,Brittany Gunter for Tonya Andrews,Brittany Gunter for Pamela Bondi,Brittany Gunter for Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Fresno Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Brittany Gunter for Todd Lyons,Brittany Gunter for Kristi Noem,Brittany Gunter for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Gunter, Brittany) (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 (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/2/2026: 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. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by tomorrow, 2/3/2026, at 5:00 PM. 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 Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 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 PAB) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 03, 2026

Dismiss

#8

Feb 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/4/2026: (Text Only Entry); GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 2 Motion for TRO. On 2/2/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order wherein petitioner alleges that he entered the United States on 6/10/2022 without inspection but was subsequently detained and then released on his own recognizance, and he was then re-detained on 12/7/2025. (Doc. No. 2 -1 at 7.) Subsequently on 2/2/2026, the court set a briefing schedule on petitioner's pending motion and ordered respondents to substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). (Doc. No. 6.) In respondents' opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ), respondents argue that this case is distinguishable from Perez and O.A.C.S. because petitioner was detained (1) for violating the conditions of his release 29 times and (2) because he was arrested in 2023 for assault with a deadly weapon that is not a firearm with great bodily injury likely, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1). (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) 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. at 3.) Respondents offer evidence that petitioner's purported 29 violations of the conditions of his release were known to respondents at the time that petitioner was re-detained and therefore were not a mere pretext or post hoc justification for petitioner's re-detention. (Doc. No. 7 -2 at 2.) In light of this evidence, petitioner is entitled to an in-custody bond hearing but not immediate release. O.A.C.S., 2025 WL 3485221, at *5 (finding that the petitioner was not entitled to immediate release but was entitled to an in-custody bond hearing because the, admittedly disputed, violations of the conditions of the petitioner's release were not obviously pretextual). This result is not altered by petitioner's 2023 arrest for assault because that arrest does not appear to meet the requirements for mandatory detention. Elias C.M. v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:25-cv-02043-TLN-EFB, 2026 WL 127612, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (holding that the petitioner's prior arrest for misdemeanor spousal battery did not alter the court's analysis or conclusion that the petitioner must be released because 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) mandatory detention did not apply where the petitioner was neither convicted nor sentenced and the petitioner's arrest was not for "acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer offense, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person") (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii)); see also Villegas ex rel. Guzman Andujar v. Francis, No. 1:25-cv-09199-JLR, 2025 WL 3215597, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2025) (noting that an arrest for misdemeanor assault does not "fall[] within § 1226(c)'s limited exceptions to discretionary detention"). Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in O.A.C.S. and above, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED in part, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents must provide petitioner a bond hearing within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order; (2) Within three days of the bond hearing, respondents shall file a status report in this case confirming that petitioner has been provided the bond hearing; (3) Petitioner's request that the court order respondents to immediately release him is DENIED without prejudice; and (4) Petitioner's request for an order enjoining respondents from removing him from the United States is DENIED without prejudice. 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 APM) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

Feb 04, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#9

Feb 09, 2026

Reconsideration

#10

Feb 10, 2026

Notice (Other)