Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01298

#1

Feb 13, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chesnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by Arnaldo Valladarez Paguada. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12905411) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order of Release on Recognizance, # 2 Exhibit Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit Marriage Certificate, # 4 Exhibit U.S. citizen spouse, # 5 Exhibit I-130 Receipt Notice, # 6 Exhibit IJ Order Granting Admin Closure, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#2

Feb 13, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Arnaldo Valladarez Paguada. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Proof of Service, # 3 Exhibit TRO Checklist)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#3

Feb 13, 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: 02/13/2026)

#4

Feb 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/13/2026: 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 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 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 Tuesday, 2/17/2026. 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 Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 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: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Feb 15, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Ihsan U. Ahmed for Sergio Albarran,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Pamela Bondi,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Christopher Chesnut,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Todd M. Lyons,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Kristi Noem (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 02/15/2026)

#6

Feb 15, 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: 02/15/2026)

#7

Feb 15, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 02/15/2026)

#8

Feb 15, 2026

RESPONSE by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chesnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 02/15/2026)

#9

Feb 18, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#10

Feb 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/19/2026: On 2/13/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 2/13/2026, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), and other similar cases decided by this court. Here, petitioner entered the United States on 1/28/2022 and was released on his own recognizance on 1/31/2022. (Doc. Nos. 2 at 6; [1-1] at 2.) Petitioner was re-detained on 2/5/2026 without notice or a hearing when he presented himself for a scheduled ICE check-in. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) On 2/15/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that there are no material factual or legal differences in this case that render it distinct from the court's prior orders. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) 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. (Id.) 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, 2026 WL 392389 (Feb. 12, 2026). The court incorporates that reasoning here. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Perez, 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 2/5/2026, 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 ) and respondents' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7 ) are referred to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

Feb 19, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO