Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01239

#1

Feb 12, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Jose Antonio Almendarez Ruiz by Jose Antonio Almendarez Ruiz. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12896895) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#2

Feb 12, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Antonio Almendarez Ruiz. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Notice, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#3

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 VLC) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#5

Feb 12, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Calvin Lee, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Polly Kaiser,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Calvin Lee, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Lee, Calvin) (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

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)

#8

Feb 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/12/2026: 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. 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 Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), or Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 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 PAB) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

Feb 12, 2026

Minute Order

#9

Feb 13, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#10

Feb 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/17/2026: (Text Only Entry); GRANTING 2 Motion for TRO. On 2/12/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). That same day, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish this case from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent decisions in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), and Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release following his release on parole. Here, petitioner entered the United States on 4/24/2024, was detained after presenting himself to immigration officials, and released on 5/27/2024 on parole. (Doc. No. 1 at 2-3.) Petitioner was re-detained on 12/9/2025 when he attended a scheduled ICE check-in without notice of the reason for his re-detention or a hearing. (Id.) On 2/13/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that this case is factually similar to those cited in the court's prior orders, and it does not present any distinguishing legal issues. (Doc. No. 9 at 1.) Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) Still, respondents oppose petitioner's motion, citing the recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). (Id.) The court has recently explained why it finds the reasoning of the majority in Buenrostro-Mendez to be unpersuasive. See Iskandar Wasef v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP (HC), 2026 WL 392389 (Feb. 12, 2026). The court incorporates that reasoning here. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Rocha Chavarria and Singh, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) 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 12/9/2025, re-detention; (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 Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO