Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01551

#1

Feb 18, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (28 USC 2241), Receipt No. ACACDC-41529334 for $5 filing fee, filed by Plaintiff Elkin Josue Aguilar Carbajal. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet CV-071, # 2 TRO) (Attorney Mardy Sproule added to party Elkin Josue Aguilar Carbajal(pty:bkmov))(Sproule, Mardy) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#2

Feb 18, 2026

NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani and referred to Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar, who is authorized to consider preliminary matters and conduct all further hearings as may be appropriate or necessary. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.4, the Court must be notified within five (5) days of any address change. See notice for additional details. (jtil) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#3

Feb 18, 2026

First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Writ of Habeas Corpus TRO filed by Plaintiff Elkin Josue Aguilar Carbajal. (Sproule, Mardy) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#4

Feb 18, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Elkin Josue Aguilar Carbajal, re First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Writ of Habeas Corpus TRO 3, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 Proof of Service served on 02/18/2026. (Sproule, Mardy) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#5

Feb 19, 2026

ORDER RE TRANSFER to this Court's General Order in the Matter of Assignment of Cases and Duties to the District Judges. (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-(BFM) (dve) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#6

Feb 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani: The parties are therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing and with supporting evidence, no later than Febmary 20, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., as to why this matter should not be transferred to the Eastern District of California. Failure to file a response by that deadline will be deemed consent to the transfer. (see document for further details) (bm) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#7

Feb 19, 2026

REPLY Response to Order to Show Cause Reply to Doc 6 filed by Petitioner Elkin Josue Aguilar Carbajal. (Sproule, Mardy) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#8

Feb 20, 2026

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION TO EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani: The Court finds that the interests of justice would be served by transferring this action to the Eastern District of California. The Court VACATES all pending pre-trial dates and deadlines and TRANSFERS this action to the Eastern District of California. This matter is now CLOSED in this district. Case transferred electronically. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp) [Transferred from cacd on 2/24/2026.] (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#9

Feb 24, 2026

CASE TRANSFERRED IN from District of California Central; Case Number 2:26-cv-01700. (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#10

Feb 24, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/30/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk CM) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#11

Feb 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 3 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 2/25/2025, 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 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 12/26/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the prior decisions in P.A.H.E. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01164-DJC-JDP, 2026 WL 451662 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026), Salvador v. Bondi, No. 2:25-cv-07946-MRA-MAA, 2025 WL 2995055 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided, 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: 02/24/2026)

#12

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)

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order

#13

Feb 26, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#14

Feb 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/26/2026: Upon further review of the 11 order issued on 2/24/2026, the court RESETS respondents' deadline to file a written opposition to the pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order to tomorrow, 2/27/2026, at 5 pm. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the prior decisions in P.A.H.E. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01164-DJC-JDP, 2026 WL 451662 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026), Salvador v. Bondi, No. 2:25-cv-07946-MRA-MAA, 2025 WL 2995055 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided, 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: 02/26/2026)

#15

Feb 26, 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: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Minute Order

#16

Feb 27, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#17

Feb 27, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Sirce Owens, Ernesto Santacruz, Jr. (Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#18

Feb 28, 2026

REPLY by Elkin Josue Aguilar Carbajal re 17 Opposition. (Sproule, Mardy) (Entered: 02/28/2026)

#19

Mar 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/3/2026: On 2/18/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order in the Central District of California. (Doc. No. 3 .) On 2/24/2026, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California after it was determined that petitioner had indicated he is presently detained at the California City Detention Center in California City, California. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9 .) On the same day, the undersigned issued an order directing respondents to file an opposition to the pending motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 11 .) On 2/27/2026, respondents filed their opposition in which they indicate that they do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 17 .) On 2/28/2026, petitioner filed a reply thereto. (Doc. No. 18 .) Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the district court's order in P.A.H.E. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01164-DJC-JDP, 2026 WL 451662 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026), where the court found that because the petitioner was initially released from immigration custody as an unaccompanied minor by the Office of Refugee Resettlement pursuant to Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, (the "TVPRA"), that the TVPRA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1232, governed the petitioner's release, and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to immediate release because he was denied the "process that should have been afforded to him prior to detention." Here, as in P.A.H.E., when petitioner initially encountered immigration officials after he entered the United States at 17 years old, petitioner was released pursuant to the TVPRA as an unaccompanied minor before being re-detained on 10/11/2025 without notice or a pre-detention hearing. (Doc. No. 1 at 3, 7.) Respondents argue that petitioner's detention is governed by § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 18 .) However, several courts have concluded that an immigration detainee cannot be subsequently subject to mandatory detention when they were previously released pursuant to the TVPRA. See e.g., P.A.H.E., 2026 WL 451662, at *2 ("Therefore, Petitioner is clearly subject to section 1232 and section 1225's mandatory detention provision does not apply."); R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2686866, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025) ("However, respondents' argument that the government could re-detain petitioner under § 1225(b), even though she was previously designated an unaccompanied minor child, is unpersuasive. The detention of unaccompanied minor children is governed by the TVPRA, which does not mandate detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2)(A)-(B)."). Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in P.A.H.E. and R.D.T.M., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his detention on 10/11/2025; 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. 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 writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

Mar 03, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO