Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01205

#1

Feb 11, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Garvit LNU. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12890552) (Ghuman, Daljit) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#2

Feb 11, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE to Daljit Ghuman: Under Local Rule 200, every complaint, amended complaint, or other document initiating a civil action shall be accompanied by a completed civil cover sheet, on a form available from the Clerk and on the Court's website. Please file your civil cover sheet. If you need assistance, please contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-884-5444. (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#3

Feb 11, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/16/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk EF) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#4

Feb 11, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#5

Feb 11, 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: 02/11/2026)

#6

Feb 11, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Christopher Chestnut. (Ghuman, Daljit) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#7

Feb 24, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#8

Feb 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/25/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 7 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 court's 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 7 motion for temporary restraining order. Petitioner's counsel has represented that respondents have been served by email. Accordingly, shall file a written opposition to the pending 7 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM tomorrow 2/26/2026. 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 Ayala 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. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order

#9

Feb 26, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#10

Feb 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/26/2026: On 2/24/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order in which he alleges that he entered the United States on 8/28/2024 without inspection, he was detained the same day and then released on his own recognizance, and on an unspecified date, he was again arrested by immigration authorities without any warning, paperwork, or legitimate reason. (Doc. No. 7 at 5-6.) On 2/25/2026, 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 the situations addressed by this court's decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). (Doc. No. 8.) In their opposition (Doc. No. 9 ), respondents concede that they "do not believe that these cases are substantively distinguishable from the instant case." (Doc. No. 9 at 1.) Respondents also state they do not oppose conversion of the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction and do not request a hearing. (Id. at 1 n.1) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as set forth in 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 recent 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 of demonstrating 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 Edmund F. Brennan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO