Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01559

#1

Feb 24, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, David Marin, Kristi Noem by Hugo Rene BORJAS ELIAS. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12949369) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (NTA & Order of ROR), # 2 Exhibit B (IJ Bond Denial), # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Arroyo, Frances) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#2

Feb 24, 2026

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

#3

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)

#4

Mar 09, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#5

Mar 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 4 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 4 motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 4 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 3/10/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), or Espinoza v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00937-DAD-CKD, 2026 WL 309562 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026); 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 and whether they oppose the court resolving the merits of the underlying habeas petition. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Mar 10, 2026

Dismiss

#7

Mar 11, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#8

Mar 11, 2026

Judgment