Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01362

(HC) Obolashvili v. Noem

Active

Case Information

Filed: February 17, 2026
Assigned to: Jennifer L. Thurston
Referred to: Christopher D. Baker
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Active
Last Activity: February 19, 2026
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#2
Feb 17, 2026
CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorney Bernal Peter Ojeda: Under Local Rule 200, every complaint, amended complaint, or other document initiating a civil action shall be accompanied by a completed civil cover sheet, on a form available from the Clerk and on the Court's website. Please file your civil cover sheet. If you need assistance, please contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-884-5444. (Deputy Clerk CM) (Entered: 02/17/2026)
#4
Feb 17, 2026
PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk PAA) (Entered: 02/17/2026)
Main Document: Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider
#5
Feb 17, 2026
DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Anthony Andrews for Pam Bondi,Anthony Andrews for Christopher Chestnut,Anthony Andrews for Polly Kaiser,Anthony Andrews for Kristi Noem (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 02/17/2026)
Main Document: DESIGNATION
#6
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)
Main Document: CONSENT/DECLINE
#7
Feb 18, 2026
MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 02/18/2026: The Court has reviewed Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1 ). Because Petitioner appears to challenge his immigration detention on statutory and constitutional grounds, the Court preliminarily concludes that Petitioner's petition is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, Respondents SHALL file their responsive pleading to the petition within seven (7) days of entry of this order. Respondents' response SHALL provide the Court with copies of referenced/relevant portions of Petitioner's A-File and other supporting documents, including notices to appear, orders relating to Petitioner's release from custody, and documents related to any asserted violations of release conditions or any asserted change of circumstances warranting Petitioner's re-detention following his initial release from custody. Petitioner may file a traverse to any answer or opposition to any motion to dismiss filed by Respondents no later than seven (7) days from the date of Respondents' filing. In the meantime, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Court ORDERS that Respondents shall not remove Petitioner from the United States nor transfer Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting 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 circumstances, the Court finds that this order is warranted to maintain the status quo pending Court's consideration of the merits of the petition and finds that Petitioner has satisfied the factors governing the issuance of such relief. (Deputy Clerk CRB) (Entered: 02/18/2026)
#8
Feb 18, 2026
MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Tamazi Obolashvili. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBITS A THROUGH D)(Ojeda, Bernal) (Entered: 02/18/2026)
Main Document: Temporary Restraining Order
Feb 18, 2026
Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings
#9
Feb 19, 2026
MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) The Court has received and reviewed Petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 8 ) Even assuming the Court was inclined to treat the matter as a procedural emergency despite the fact that Petitioner was detained more than five weeks ago, in doing so the Court would have set a response deadline identical to that already set by the magistrate judge earlier today. (See Doc. 7 ) Thus, the TRO is DENIED as unnecessary and because it would duplicate proceedings. If Petitioner wishes to attempt to further accelerate disposition of the matter, he may file his Traverse early signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on February 19, 2026. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 02/19/2026)
Feb 19, 2026
Order on Motion for TRO