Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01336

#1

Feb 16, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pamela Bondi, Orestes Cruz, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford by Jonatan Josue Garcia Flores. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12910925) (LeRoy, Carrie) (Entered: 02/16/2026)

#2

Feb 16, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Jonatan Josue Garcia Flores. (LeRoy, Carrie) (Entered: 02/16/2026)

#3

Feb 16, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jonatan Josue Garcia Flores. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE REQUEST FOR TRO, # 2 Declaration ISO EX PARTE REQUEST FOR TRO AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, # 3 Exhibit ISO EX PARTE REQUEST FOR TRO AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, # 4 Proposed Order GRANTING EX PARTE REQUEST FOR TRO AND PET FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, # 5 Statement COMPLETED TRO CHECKLIST)(LeRoy, Carrie) (Entered: 02/16/2026)

#4

Feb 17, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk EF) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#5

Feb 17, 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: 02/17/2026)

#6

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 3 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 2/18/2026, 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 Attorney's 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 2/19/2026. 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, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 269240 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026), 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

#7

Feb 18, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Orestes Cruz,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Kristi Noem,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Minga Wofford (Zaidi, Imi) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#8

Feb 18, 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: 02/18/2026)

#9

Feb 18, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#10

Feb 19, 2026

Dismiss

#11

Feb 23, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#12

Feb 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2026: On 2/16/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ). On 2/17/2026, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact would distinguish this case from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent decision in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioners' liberty interest in their continued release. (Doc. No. 6 .) Here, petitioner entered the United States on 3/20/2019, was detained by immigration officials shortly thereafter, and was released on his own recognizance on 5/28/2019. (Doc. Nos [3-1] at 8; [3-3] at 22.) Petitioner was re-detained on 12/19/2025 without notice or an opportunity to be heard. (Doc. No. [3-1] at 6-7.) On 2/19/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 10 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that the case cited in the court's minute order (Doc. No. 6 ) is 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.) 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 Perez, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) 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 12/19/2025 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

#13

May 11, 2026

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

#14

May 11, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION re 13 Docketed into wrong case. Please disregard. (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#15

May 26, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text Only): Petitioner (A No. 201 752 754) is proceeding with a 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging arrest and detention by ICE. The district court has ordered, by way of preliminary injunctive relief, Petitioner's release and that detention not occur absent certain protections. Prior to arrest, Petitioner was released into the United States by ICE premised upon either an explicit or implicit finding that Petitioner was not dangerous or a flight risk. While on release, Petitioner did not commit any crimes, materially complied with conditions of release and is not subject to a final order of removal. Considering all of these factors, and consistent with the court's rulings in Martinez v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-1826 TLN CKD P, ECF No. 14 ; Rebolledo v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-1904 CKD P, ECF No. 15 ; Esteban-Escalante v. Warden, Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, 1:26-cv-0096 DC CKD P, ECF No. 10 and H.S. v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility, 1:25-cv-1924 CKD P, ECF No. 21, the court finds Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated, RECOMMENDS THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF NO. 1 ) BE GRANTED, THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELEIF PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BE MADE PERMANENT and THIS CASE BE CLOSED. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 7 (seven) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 7 (seven) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#16

May 27, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations