Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01518

#1

Feb 23, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Lyons, Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford by Kulwinder Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12944181) (Attachments: # 1 COVER, # 2 EVIDENCE)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#2

Feb 23, 2026

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Kulwinder Singh. (Attachments: # 1 CHECKLIST, # 2 ATTORNEY DEC, # 3 EVIDENCE)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#3

Feb 23, 2026

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

#4

Feb 23, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Ihsan U. Ahmed for Todd Lyons,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Sergio Albarran,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Pamela Bondi,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Kristi Noem,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Minga Wofford (Ahmed, Ihsan) (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

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 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 JRM) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 24, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS by Todd Lyons, Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#8

Feb 24, 2026

RESPONSE by Todd Lyons, Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford to 2 Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#9

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 a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). That same day, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact would distinguish this case from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release. (Doc. No. 6 .) Here, petitioner entered the United States on 6/11/2024, was detained by immigration officials shortly thereafter, and was released on his own recognizance that same day. (Doc. No. 1 at 15.) Petitioner was re-detained by immigration authorities on 12/20/2025 without notice or an opportunity to be heard. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) On 2/24/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that the case cited in the court's minute order (Doc. No. 6 ) is not legally or factually distinct from the current case. (Doc. No. 8 at 2). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) Still, respondents oppose petitioner's motion, citing the decision Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). (Id.) The court has recently explained why it finds the reasoning of the majority in Buenrostro-Mendez to be unpersuasive. See Iskandar Wasef v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP (HC), 2026 WL 392389 (Feb. 12, 2026). The court incorporates that reasoning here. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Ayala Cajina, 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 re-detention on 12/20/2025; 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. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) and respondents' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 7 ) are referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Feb 27, 2026

Minute Order