Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01215

#1

Feb 11, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden by Dharminder Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12894120) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Coversheet, # 3 Exhibit ICE and ID documents)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#2

Feb 11, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Dharminder Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memo, # 2 Proposed Order PO)(Gahra, Manpreet) (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 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

#4

Feb 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/12/2026: (Text Only Entry).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 today, 2/12/2026, 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 Friday, 2/13/2026. 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 CGH) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#5

Feb 12, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Pamela Jo Bondi,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Kristi Noem,Arelis M. Clemente, GOVT for Warden (Clemente, Arelis) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#6

Feb 12, 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: 02/12/2026)

#7

Feb 12, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#8

Feb 12, 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: 02/12/2026)

#9

Feb 12, 2026

Opposition to Motion

Feb 12, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Feb 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/18/2026: On 2/11/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 2/12/2026, respondents filed an opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to the motion. In that opposition, respondents argue only that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention by virtue of being present in the United States, an argument that the undersigned has rejected on several recent occasions. Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the undersigned's previous orders in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in their continued release, and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), in which the court concluded that previously releasing the petitioner on his own recognizance created a reliance interest such that the petitioner was entitled to the due process available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, petitioner arrived in the United States on 12/17/2022, was detained by immigration authorities, and subsequently released on supervised release. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) On 1/20/2026, petitioner was detained by immigration officers, without notice or a hearing, when he reported as directed to an ICE Field Office for a routine check-in. (Id. at 1.) In their opposition, respondents state that they do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 9 at 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Ayala Cajina and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his re-detention on 1/20/2026; and (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 a neutral adjudicator. 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. This action is REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on the pending petition. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

Feb 18, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO