Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00980

#1

Feb 04, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by Lian Fang Li. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12858728) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil coversheet, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed order, # 3 Exhibit ICE docs, # 4 Exhibit Wife's statement)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#2

Feb 04, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Lian Fang Li. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memo, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#3

Feb 04, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk CRM) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#4

Feb 04, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#5

Feb 04, 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: 02/04/2026)

#6

Feb 05, 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: 02/05/2026)

#7

Feb 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/5/2026: 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 5:00 PM on Friday, 2/6/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decision in Perez v. Albarran, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 269240 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026), or 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: 02/05/2026)

Feb 05, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Feb 11, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/11/2026: On 2/4/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which his counsel served on respondents the same day. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 2/5/2026, the court issued an order directing respondents to file an opposition to petitioner's motion by Friday, 2/6/2026. (Doc. No. 7 .) Nonetheless, to date, respondents have failed to file an opposition as directed. A review of the evidence submitted by petitioner reveals that, on or about 4/22/2023, petitioner entered the United States, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and was released on his own recognizance pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236, 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 5-6; [1-3] at 1-4.) Petitioner contends that he has been compliant with all of the conditions of his release and that he was re-detained without notice or explanation on 11/13/2025 when he reported as directed for an immigration check-in. (Doc. No. 1 at 6.) The court finds analogous the reasoning outlined in the 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), 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 petitioners' liberty interest in their continued release, and adopts the reasoning set forth in those decisions. Accordingly, the court GRANTS petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order as follows: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner under the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention on or about 11/13/2025; (2) respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner written notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate that petitioner is a danger to the community or flight risk. Petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order requesting the court to enjoin respondents from: (1) transferring petitioner outside of the Eastern District of California; and (2) removing petitioner from the United States during the pendency of these proceedings is denied as having been rendered moot by this order. Under the circumstances of the case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

Feb 11, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

Feb 13, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

Feb 13, 2026

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