Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01218

#1

Feb 12, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford by Aidyn Sadykov. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12895329) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A - Immigration Documents)(Shah, Nilima) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#2

Feb 12, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/19/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk PAA) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#3

Feb 12, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Ihsan U. Ahmed for Sergio Albarran,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Pamela Bondi,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Todd Lyons,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Kristi Noem,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Minga Wofford (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#4

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)

#5

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)

#6

Feb 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 02/13/2026: The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254. Because Petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, Respondent is directed to show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer/return on or before February 20, 2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner may file a reply/traverse to the answer/return on or before February 27, 2026. (Text Only Entry), (Filing Deadline: 2/20/2026 ) (Deputy Clerk JLP) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#7

Feb 20, 2026

Dismiss

#8

Feb 20, 2026

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#9

Feb 27, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#10

Feb 27, 2026

REPLY by Aidyn Sadykov re 8 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. (Shah, Nilima) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#11

May 13, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#12

May 14, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/14/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count Two of the Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner's habeas petition] as law and justice require."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 5/18/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 5/19/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count Two only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#13

May 15, 2026

OPPOSITION to 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Respondents. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#14

May 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/27/2026: In Petitioner's 11 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that his 1/6/2026 custody redetermination hearing was constitutionally deficient because the immigration judge improperly placed the burden of proof on Petitioner and failed to meaningfully weigh all factors demonstrating that Petitioner is not a flight risk. In their 13 Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents note that in an initial bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), "the burden is on the non-citizen to establish to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge that he or she does not present a danger to persons or property, is not a threat to the national security, and does not pose a risk of flight." Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Respondents further note that Petitioner has not appealed that custody determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and therefore has not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing this habeas petition. See Leonardo v. Clark, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that where noncitizen petitioner failed to appeal denial of bond redetermination request before filing habeas petition, "the district court should have dismissed Leonardo's claims, without prejudice, for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.") Petitioner did not file a Reply responding to Respondents' arguments, and his time to do so has expired. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his current immigration detention violates his constitutional or statutory rights, and his 11 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

May 27, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#15

Jun 03, 2026

Reconsideration

Jun 05, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Reconsideration