Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01492

#1

Feb 23, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by Hardeep Hardeep. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12940532) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Ghazialam, Bashir) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#2

Feb 23, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Hardeep Hardeep. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Hardeep Hardeep and Bashir Ghazialam, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Bashir Ghazialam, # 4 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ghazialam, Bashir) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#3

Feb 23, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

Feb 23, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Anthony Andrews for Sergio Albarran,Anthony Andrews for Pam Bondi,Anthony Andrews for Christopher Chestnut,Anthony Andrews for Todd M. Lyons,Anthony Andrews for Kristi Noem (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#5

Feb 23, 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: 02/23/2026)

#6

Feb 23, 2026

PROPOSED ORDER re 2 MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Hardeep Hardeep. (Ghazialam, Bashir) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#7

Feb 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/23/26: 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 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents shall File a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 2/24/2026. 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, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK, 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. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Feb 24, 2026

RETURN to 1 Petition and OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Respondents. (Andrews, Anthony) Modified on 3/2/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#9

Feb 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/25/2026: (Text Only Entry).On 2/24/2026, respondents filed a 8 response to petitioner's 2 motion for a temporary restraining order. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a reply to respondents' 8 response no later than tomorrow, 2/26/2026, by 5:00 PM. In that reply, petitioner shall address the following: (1) the factual discrepancies between petitioner's 2 motion and respondents' 8 response, and (2) whether petitioner may be a member of the class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025). (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Feb 26, 2026

REPLY by Hardeep Hardeep re 9 Minute Order,, 8 Response. (Ghazialam, Bashir) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#11

Mar 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/2/2026: On 2/23/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, in which he requests his immediate release, and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. (Doc. No. 2 .) That same day, 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 decision in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK, 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), in which the petitioner had previously been released from immigration detention and later re-detained, the petitioner was subject to discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and the court found that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release. Respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to petitioner's motion on 2/24/2026. Respondents concede therein that, aside from petitioner's arrest on 12/11/2025, the case is not substantively distinct from Perez. (Id. at 1.) Upon respondents' request, for purposes of this order, the court will take judicial notice of the existence of the Form I-213 (Doc. No. 8 at 10-12), but the court cannot take judicial notice of the matters asserted therein. See Bhatia v. Silvergate Bank, 725 F. Supp. 3d 1079, 1101 (S.D. Cal. 2024) (noting the court cannot take judicial notice of court dockets and filings for the truth of the matter asserted therein); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of the existence of naturalization applications but not their contents). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 1). Petitioner filed a reply on 2/26/2026. (Doc. No. 10 .) The court finds analogous and persuasive its reasoning in O.A.C.S., v. Wofford, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK, 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), in which the court concluded that previously releasing the petitioner on his own recognizance created a reliance interest such that the petitioner was entitled to the due process available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that because petitioner had been re-detained after allegedly violating his release conditions, he was entitled to an in-custody bond hearing. Here, petitioner entered the United States on 10/27/2023, was detained upon his arrival, and released on 10/29/2023. (Doc. No. [2-2] at 3-7.) Petitioner was re-detained on 12/17/2025, following his arrest on 12/11/2025. (Doc. No. 8 at 11; 10 at 2.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 13 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner a bond hearing within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order where respondents shall bear the burden of demonstrating that petitioner poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community; (2) Within three days of the bond hearing, respondents shall file a status report in this case confirming that petitioner has been provided the bond hearing; and (3) petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order ordering respondents to immediately release him is DENIED without prejudice. 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: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO