Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01582

#1

Feb 25, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Feb 25, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Samuel Manas Melake. (Gaime, Haregu) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#3

Feb 25, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorney Haregu Gaime re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Under Local Rule 200, every complaint, amended complaint, or other document initiating a civil action shall be accompanied by a completed civil cover sheet, on a form available from the Clerk and on the Court's website. Please file your civil cover sheet. If you need assistance, please contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-884- 5444. (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#4

Feb 25, 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: 02/25/2026)

#5

Feb 25, 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: 02/25/2026)

#6

Feb 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/25/2026: 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, 2/26/2026, by 5:00 PM, respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order. 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. If respondents indicate that this case is distinguishable from Ayala Cajina, then respondents shall further indicate whether petitioner falls within the bond eligible class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). 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: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 26, 2026

RETURN to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Respondents. (Andrews, Anthony) Modified on 3/3/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#8

Feb 26, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Orestes Cruz, Kristi Noem. (Andrews, Anthony) Modified on 3/3/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#9

Mar 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/3/2026: On 2/25/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 2/26/2026, respondents filed an opposition to the pending motion. Respondents argue therein that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) because he is an applicant for admission. (Doc. No. 7 at 3.) Alternatively, they argue that petitioner is lawfully detained under § 1226(a) because he is a danger to the community based upon his 2024 rape conviction in Sweden and has physically attacked staff and other detainees since he has been re-detained. (Id. at 4.) Respondents do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 2.) Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds instructive its reasoning in O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), where the court held that an in-custody bond hearing was appropriate for a petitioner who was re-detained for violating the conditions of his release on his own recognizance and that revocation of release was not "obviously pre-textual." Here, petitioner was initially released on an order of his own recognizance pursuant to § 1226 and was subsequently re-detained after immigration officials determined that petitioner's return to custody was appropriate after concluding that petitioner was "amenable to ICE enforcement action as a Warrant for Arrest/Motion to Re-calendar and will be held in custody without bond." (Doc. No. 7 at 30.) There is no indication that petitioner was provided advanced notice or an explanation for his re-detention when he was re-detained by immigration officials. Accordingly, the court CONVERTS petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTS it as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner a bond hearing within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order; and (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. Petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order seeking his immediate release is DENIED without prejudice. Under the circumstances of the 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