Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01405

#1

Feb 17, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Million Kidane Degol. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12918945) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit INDEX OF EXHIBITS, # 3 Exhibit EXHIBIT A, # 4 Exhibit EXHIBIT B, # 5 Exhibit EXHIBIT C, # 6 Exhibit EXHIBIT D, # 7 Exhibit EXHIBIT E)(Rosell, Sara) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#2

Feb 17, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Million Kidane Degol. Motion Hearing set for 2/20/2026 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosell, Sara) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#3

Feb 18, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk RMG) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#4

Feb 18, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Imi Zaidi, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Zaidi, Imi) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#5

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)

#6

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)

#7

Feb 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/18/2026: 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. Further, no later than today, 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 Attorneys 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM tomorrow, 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 decisions in Uzzhina v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01594-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3458787 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) and Arshakyam v. Warden of California City Det., No. 1:25-cv-01780-DAD-AC (HC), 2026 WL 143143 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026), and other similar cases 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 JRM) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#8

Feb 18, 2026

SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Sergio Albarran served on 2/18/2026, answer due 3/11/2026; Pamela Bondi served on 2/18/2026, answer due 3/11/2026; Christopher Chestnut served on 2/18/2026, answer due 3/11/2026; Todd Lyons served on 2/18/2026, answer due 3/11/2026; Kristi Noem served on 2/18/2026, answer due 3/11/2026.. Attorney Rosell, Sara Silvia added as counsel of record. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Sent To Opposing Counsel)(Rosell, Sara) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

Feb 18, 2026

Minute Order

#9

Feb 19, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Respondents. Attorney Lee, Justin added. (Lee, Justin) Modified on 2/24/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#10

Feb 20, 2026

Answer to Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint

#11

Feb 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/27/2026: On 2/17/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order in which he alleges as follows: (1) he entered the United States on 4/1/2016 and was detained for six months before being ordered released on bond; (2) on 3/6/2017 he gathered the funds to post the bond and was released; (3) on 3/3/2020 his removal order became final but he remained in the United States due to the inability to remove him to Eritrea; (4) on 6/20/2025 he was apprehended by ICE without explanation, notice, or an opportunity to respond, and he has remained detained while being told to sign papers requesting the issuance of travel documents to Eritrea, which he has refused to sign due to the persecution he would face there. (Doc. No. 2 at 4-6.) On 2/18/2026, the court set a briefing schedule on petitioner's pending motion and ordered respondents to substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the situations addressed by this court's decisions in Uzzhina v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01594-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3458787 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) and Arshakyam v. Warden of California City Det., No. 1:25-cv-01780-DAD-AC (HC), 2026 WL 143143 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026). (Doc. No. 7.) In their opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to petitioner's pending motion (Doc. No. 2 ), respondents concede that "[t]he Court's prior decision in Uzzhina is relevant and substantially similar because it involved a petitioner subject to a final order of removal." (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) However, respondents argued that the case was distinguishable because the instant action involves a petitioner who is not cooperating in obtaining travel documents to effectuate his removal to his country of origin. (Id.) It is true that "when an alien refuses to cooperate fully and honestly with officials to secure travel documents from a foreign government, the alien cannot meet his or her burden to show there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Lema v. I.N.S., 341 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2003). Crucially, however, respondents do not contest that they "failed to provide petitioner with proper notice of this justification for [his] detention." Uzzhina, 2025 WL 3458787, at *5. "To the extent that the reason for revocation of release was a change in the foreseeability of petitioner's removal, the notice provided was deficient." Id. Here, respondents have made no showing of changed circumstances making it likely that petitioner can be removed to Eritrea. Respondents also state in their opposition that they do not oppose conversion of the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction and do not request a hearing. (Doc. No. 9 at 1 n.1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as set forth in Uzzhina, 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 6/20/2025 re-detention; and (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 Allison Claire for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#12

Feb 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 02/27/2026. The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the filings in this action. If further briefing and evidence is needed, respondents may file an answer within fourteen days from the date of this order. Petitioner may file a traverse within seven days of the date an answer is filed or due. If no further briefing is filed, the matter will be deemed submitted. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Feb 27, 2026

Minute Order