Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01470

#1

Feb 20, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against all Respondents by Keiber Alexander Espinoza Salas. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12934657) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#2

Feb 20, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Keiber Alexander Espinoza Salas. (Attachments: # 1 Notice, # 2 Memorandum, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#3

Feb 20, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#4

Feb 20, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Polly Kaiser,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Ron Murray,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#5

Feb 20, 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: 02/20/2026)

#6

Feb 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/2026: 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 Monday, 2/23/2026, by 5:00 PM, respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order. 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 Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), 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. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#7

Feb 20, 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: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Feb 21, 2026

RESPONSE by Pamela Bondi, Polly Kaiser, Todd M. Lyons, Ron Murray, Kristi Noem to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 6 Minute Order,,,,,,,. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/21/2026)

#9

Feb 22, 2026

REPLY by Keiber Alexander Espinoza Salas re 8 Response. (Lal, Prerna) (Entered: 02/22/2026)

#10

Feb 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2026: On 2/20/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order seeking his immediate release from respondents' custody under the same conditions he was subject to prior to his re-detention on 12/17/2025. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 2/21/2026, respondents filed an opposition to that motion in which they concede that there are no factual or legal issues that materially distinguish this case from the court's prior orders in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025). (Doc. No. 8 .) Nonetheless, respondents argue that the court should adopt the reasoning outlined in the recent 5th Circuit opinion in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330, at *1-10 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), or otherwise deny the petition on the merits because petitioner's due process claim fails. (Id. at 1-2.) Respondents have also indicated that they "are amenable to converting the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction." (Id. at 1.) On or about 12/15/2023, petitioner entered the United States fleeing persecution in Venezuela. After presenting himself at the border, petitioner was briefly detained and screened by immigration officials. On 12/15/2023, petitioner was released into the United States on his own recognizance. On 12/17/2025, respondents re-detained petitioner when he voluntarily presented himself at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office for a required check-in. Petitioner was provided no prior notice or explanation for his re-detention. Prior to his re-detention, petitioner complied with all of the requirements of his release. He has no criminal record. The court has recently explained why it finds the reasoning of the majority in Buenrostro-Mendez, upon which respondents' rely, to be unpersuasive. Iskandar Wasef v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP (HC), 2026 WL 392389, (Feb. 12, 2026). Having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner's detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds instructive the reasoning set forth in its prior order in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083, at *2-6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025) where the court concluded that the government's previous decision to release the petitioner from immigration custody created a liberty interest in their continued freedom from detention, and the decision to re-detain the petitioner without a pre-detention hearing violated due process. Accordingly, the court adopts the reasoning of the decision in Ayala Cajina, CONVERTS petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction, and GRANTS it as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody under the same conditions he was subject to prior to his re-detention on 12/17/2025; (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden of establishing that petitioner is either a danger to the community or flight risk. 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. Petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order requesting the court to enjoin respondents from transferring, relocating, or removing petitioner from the Eastern District of California is DENIED as having been rendered MOOT by this order. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO