Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01125

#1

Feb 09, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by Emilio Bertis Bermudez. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12876870) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sulfab, Maisoun) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#2

Feb 09, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/16/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk aa) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#3

Feb 09, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#4

Feb 09, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Emilio Bertis Bermudez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Sulfab, Maisoun) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#5

Feb 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/10/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 4 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 4 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than today, 2/10/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorneys 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 4 motion for temporary restraining order by tomorrow, 2/11/2026, 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 decision in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), 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: 02/10/2026)

#6

Feb 10, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

Feb 10, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 11, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Feb 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/12/2026: On 2/9/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order in which he alleges that he entered the United States on 9/26/2023 without inspection, was subsequently released from DHS custody on parole, and on 12/15/2025 he was arrested by immigration authorities while attending a routine check-in without explanation or justification. (Doc. No. 4 at 2-5.) On 2/10/2026, 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. 5 .) In respondents' opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ), respondents concede that they "do not believe that these cases are substantively distinguishable from the instant case." (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) Still, respondents argue that the recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) supports their position. (Id. at 2.) The court is unpersuaded by the Fifth Circuit's analysis in Buenrostro-Mendez for the reasons stated in Iskandar Wasef v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP (HC), Doc. No. 10 (Feb. 12, 2026). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 1 n.1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as set forth in Perez and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ) 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 12/15/2025 re-detention; and (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 Allison Claire for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

Feb 12, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#9

Feb 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/18/2026. The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the filings in this action. Within seven days from the date of this order, respondents shall inform the court whether they intend to stand on the record as is or if they wish to present further briefing and evidence. If respondents elect to stand on the existing record, petitioner may file a reply, if any, in support of the petition within fourteen days of respondent's notice to stand on the existing record. If no reply is filed within the timeframe provided, the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be deemed submitted. Alternatively, if respondent elects to present further briefing and evidence, the court will issue a briefing schedule. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

Feb 18, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Feb 21, 2026

OPPOSITION to 1 Petition by Respondents. (Clemente, Arelis) Modified on 2/26/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/21/2026)