Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01511

#1

Feb 23, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by O. R.L.. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12942044) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Baroudi, Lina) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#2

Feb 23, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by O. R.L.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice TRO Checklist)(Baroudi, Lina) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#3

Feb 23, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by O. R.L.. (Baroudi, Lina) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#4

Feb 23, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/30/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk OFR) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#5

Feb 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/23/2026: (Text Only Entry).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. Further, no later than tomorrow, 2/24/2026, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion to proceed under a pseudonym, 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order and 3 motion to proceed under a pseudonym by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 2/25/2026. 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 Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 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 CGH) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Feb 24, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by O. R.L. re 5 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,. Attorney Baroudi, Lina added.. Attorney Baroudi, Lina added as counsel of record. (Baroudi, Lina) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#7

Feb 24, 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: 02/24/2026)

#8

Feb 24, 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: 02/24/2026)

#9

Feb 25, 2026

RESPONSE by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem to 5 Minute Order,,,,,,,,, 3 Motion to Proceed under a Pseudonym, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#10

Feb 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/26/2026: On 2/23/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) and a motion to proceed under pseudonym (Doc. No. 3 ). On 2/19/2026, respondents filed an opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to the pending motions. In that opposition, respondents argue that petitioner is subject to a final order of removal entered on June 9, 2016, and can accordingly be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). However, respondents concede that, since April 1, 2020, petitioner has been released on parole despite the final removal order. Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the undersigned's previous order in Correa-Correa v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01283-DAD-CKD, 2026 WL 482748 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026), where the court concluded that the petitioner was subject to the detention authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) but nevertheless was entitled to immediate release and a pre-detention hearing because the respondents failed to comply with their own regulations. Here, petitioner returned to the United States in 2018 following his removal in 2017, was apprehended in October 2019 by immigration authorities, and subsequently released on April 1, 2020, following approximately six months of detention. (Doc. No. 1 at 17-20.) On 9/15/2025, petitioner was detained by immigration officers when he reported as directed for an ISAP check-in, with no explanation or reason for his re-detention being provided at that time or since. (Id. at 21.) In their opposition, respondents state that they do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction and do not oppose the granting of petitioner's motion to proceed under pseudonym. (Doc. No. 9 at 3.) Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Correa-Correa, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED and, good cause appearing, petitioner's motion to proceed under pseudonym (Doc. No. 3 ) is also GRANTED. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his re-detention on 9/15/2025; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner written notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator, where respondents shall bear the burden of demonstrating that petitioner poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community. 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. This action is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Pseudonym AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

Mar 10, 2026

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

#12

Mar 17, 2026

REPLY to 9 Response by O. R.L. (Baroudi, Lina) Modified on 3/20/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#13

Apr 13, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text only) signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/13/2026: After petitioner initiated this action, the court granted injunctive relief by way of ordering petitioner's release. (ECF No. 10 .) Still pending is petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 .) The primary dispute between the parties is whether re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights. I have addressed this issue previously and have consistently found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates a noncitizen's due process rights. See, e.g., Amarillo v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-1623-JDP, 2026 WL 279856 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026). After considering the parties' filings, and for the reasons stated in Amarillo and similar cases, I find that petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated and hereby RECOMMEND the following: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be GRANTED; (2) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 10, be made permanent; and (3) the Clerk of Court be ordered to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 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 seven days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response shall be served and filed within seven days of 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. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

Apr 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#14

Apr 20, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#15

May 04, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations

#16

May 04, 2026

Judgment