Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01169

#1

Feb 10, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Lyons, Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford by Manveer Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12884027) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibits)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#2

Feb 10, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Manveer Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 TRO Checklist, # 3 Declaration)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#3

Feb 10, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED: Consent or Decline due by 3/16/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

#4

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 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, 2/11/2026, 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 2/12/2026. 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 Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 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. Additionally, the court observes that petitioner has included unredacted images depicting petitioner's social security number that was issued to him for work authorization as attachments to his petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. "It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the "good cause" standard applies to requests to seal documents which are attached to a non-dispositive motion whereas the "compelling reasons" standard applies to requests to seal documents which are attached to dispositive motions. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-98 (9th Cir. 2016). A review of petitioner's attachment reveals that it contains personally identifiable information. Such information is sealable under both the "good cause" and "compelling reasons" standards. Daybreak Game Co., LLC v. Takahashi, No. 25-cv-01489-BAS-BLM, 2025 WL 3677379, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025) (collecting cases where courts sealed documents under the "compelling reasons" standard on the basis that they contained personally identifiable information). Accordingly, compelling reasons appearing, the court sua sponte ORDERS the sealing of petitioner's [1-2] attachment to his petition and petitioner's [2-1] attachment to his motion for temporary restraining order. The court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to seal [1-2] and [2-1]. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/10/2026)

Feb 10, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Feb 17, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Calvin Lee, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Kristi Noem,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Minga Wofford (Lee, Calvin) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#6

Feb 17, 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: 02/17/2026)

#7

Feb 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/17/2026: On 2/10/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 ). On the same day, the court ordered respondents to file any opposition to the pending motion by 2/11/2026. (Doc. No. 4 ). To date, respondents have failed to file any opposition to the pending motion. Petitioner entered the United States on or about 6/20/2024, was subsequently released from custody and placed into an intensive supervision program that required him to submit weekly SmartLINK photo uploads, attend monthly in-person office visits, and participate in monthly video check-ins. On or about 9/28/2025, petitioner was arrested for theft and misdemeanor offenses. On 11/25/2025, petitioner appeared at the San Jose, California ICE office at the direction of ICE officials where he was re-detained due to his arrest without prior notice or hearing. On 12/1/2025, all criminal charges against petitioner were dismissed. Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's detention, the court concludes that petitioner is not mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Rueda Torres v. Francis, 2025 WL 3168759, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025) ("Similarly, detention remains mandatory if charges are filed, but it is no longer required if charges are dropped or if a person is acquitted."); Helbrum v. Williams Olson, No. 4:25-cv-00349-SHL-SBJ, 2025 WL 2840273, at *5-6 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 30, 2025) (finding that the petitioner was not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c) where they were arrested for theft and the charges were subsequently dismissed). Moreover, the court finds analogous its prior order in Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083, at *2-5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court concluded that because respondents previously released the petitioner from their custody, he gained a liberty interest in his continued release and was entitled to protections under due process. The court also finds instructive its prior order in O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK, 2025 WL 3485221, *3-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) where the court held that the petitioner who was re-detained after violating the conditions of his release was entitled to an in-custody bond hearing. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner a bond hearing within ten (10) 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 for a temporary restraining order ordering respondents to immediately release him 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 parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date 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: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO