Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01305

#1

Feb 13, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes Cruz, Does 1-5, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by JOSE DOUGLAS GUARDO MORALES. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12906290) (Glazer, Nicolette) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#2

Feb 13, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by JOSE DOUGLAS GUARDO MORALES. (Glazer, Nicolette) (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 SR) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#4

Feb 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/13/2026: A review of the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus reveals that petitioner is requesting that the court grant petitioner's immediate release pursuant to a temporary restraining order. Petitioner is directed to file a separate motion for temporary restraining order in compliance with Local Rule 231 if he is seeking emergency relief. Regardless, the 1 petition is immediately REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#5

Feb 13, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Douglas Guardo Morales. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order proposed order, # 2 Supplement TRO Checklist)(Glazer, Nicolette) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#6

Feb 13, 2026

DECLARATION of Nicolette Glazer in support of 5 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Glazer, Nicolette) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 15, 2026

NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Imi Zaidi, GOVT on behalf of Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes Cruz, Does 1-5, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem. Attorney Zaidi, Imi added. (Zaidi, Imi) (Entered: 02/15/2026)

#8

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)

#9

Feb 17, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/17/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 5 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 5 motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 5 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 2/18/2026. 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: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Feb 18, 2026

Dismiss

#11

Feb 22, 2026

RESPONSE by Jose Douglas Guardo Morales to 9 Minute Order,,,,,,, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 10 Motion to Dismiss. (Glazer, Nicolette) (Entered: 02/22/2026)

#12

Feb 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2026: On 2/13/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 5 ). On 2/17/2026, 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 petitioners' liberty interest in their continued release following their parole. (Doc. No. 9 .) Here, petitioner entered the United States in 2013, was detained by immigration officials on 4/12/2013, and was released shortly thereafter on parole. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 6; 5 at 2.) Petitioner was re-detained on 9/30/2025 by a military guard on behalf of respondents when he was picking up a shipment for his employer at the El Segundo military base and was unable to produce "satisfactory" proof of "legal status." (Doc. No. 1 at 7.) On 2/18/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 10 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that the cases cited in the court's minute order (Doc. No. 9 ) are not distinct from the current case. (Doc. No. 10 at 2). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 2). Still, respondents oppose petitioner's motion, citing the recent decision Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). (Id. at 1.) 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 Rocha Chavarria and Singh, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 5 ) 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 9/30/2025 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 Carolyn K. Delaney for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO