Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01045

#1

Feb 06, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Sergio Albarran, Kristi Noem, Minga Woffard by RITENDRA SINGH CHATTHA. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12870082) (Attachments: # 1 CIVIL, # 2 EVIDENCE)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#2

Feb 06, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by RITENDRA SINGH CHATTHA. (Attachments: # 1 Evidence, # 2 ATTORNEY, # 3 CHECKLIST)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#3

Feb 06, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/12/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk OFR) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#4

Feb 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/6/2026: 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. Further, no later than Monday, 2/9/2026, 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 by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 2/10/2026. 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 Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 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: 02/06/2026)

#5

Feb 06, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Kristi Noem,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Minga Wofford (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#6

Feb 06, 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: 02/06/2026)

Feb 06, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 10, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Feb 11, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/11/2026: On 2/6/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). That same day, the court set a briefing schedule and 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 recent decision in Perez v. Albarran, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 269240 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court. Respondents have failed to address the above-cited cases in their opposition despite the court's direction to do so. (Doc. No. 7 .) The court will construe respondents' non-responsiveness as a concession that the instant case is not legally or factually distinguishable from Perez, in which the court found that the petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her re-detention without notice and an opportunity to be heard violated due process. Upon review, the court also finds analogous and persuasive its decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court found the petitioner had a strong private interest in his continued release despite supervised release violations in part because immigration officials had made periodic determinations that he posed neither a danger or a flight risk. Here, petitioner entered the United States on 3/24/2024, was detained, and released on his own recognizance the next day. (Doc. Nos. [2-1] at 7; 7 at 5.) The parties suggest petitioner had four minor, technical violations of his terms of release, but each of those technical violations occurred prior to April 2025, when ICE reduced petitioner's supervision requirements, implicitly determining that petitioner did not pose a flight risk or a danger to the community at that time. (Doc. Nos. 2 at 7 ; 7 at 8.) Moreover, respondents do not argue that petitioner was re-detained due to these technical violations. (Doc. No. 7.) Petitioner was re-detained on 8/5/2025, without written notice of the reason for his re-detention or an opportunity to contest the basis for his re-detention. (Doc. No. 2 at 8.) Respondents state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7 at 4). Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Perez and Ayala Cajina, 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 8/5/2025, 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 Sean C. Riordan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

Feb 11, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO