Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01583

#1

Feb 25, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Galina Titova. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#2

Feb 25, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#3

Feb 25, 2026

MOTION to EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION by Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#4

Feb 25, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#5

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 OML) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#6

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)

#7

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 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. Further, in light of petitioner's pro se status, the court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order 4, and a copy of this order to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov, by tomorrow, 2/26/2026 at 5 PM. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 4 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Friday, 2/27/2026. 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), or Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK (HC), 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), or 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: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Service by Mail

Feb 25, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk JRM)

Feb 25, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk OML)

Feb 25, 2026

RECEIPT number 100007354 for $5.00 from Cody Brady. (Deputy Clerk OML)

Feb 25, 2026

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

#8

Feb 27, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#9

Feb 27, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#10

Mar 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/2/2026: (Text Only Entry).On 2/25/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a 4 motion for temporary restraining order. On 2/27/2026, respondents filed their 8 opposition thereto. Respondents' opposition contains the following conflicting factual assertions: (1) Deportation Officer ("DO") Mears declares that he reviewed the case of Mr. Oscar Rodriguez Lopez (Petitioner) yet the petitioner in this case is Galina Titova (Doc. No. [8-1] at 2); (2) DO Mears declares that Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") records show petitioner has a pending appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") but that there is no stay of removal (id.) yet the Form I-213 dated 9/26/2025 states removal was stayed (id. at 12); and (3) while DO Mears and the Form I-213 suggest petitioner has a pending appeal with the BIA, the Automated Case Information Sheet dated 2/27/2026 states that no appeal was received for this case by the BIA (id. at 19.) Respondents are therefore DIRECTED to file a supplemental brief no later than 3/3/2026 at 5:00 PM in which they provide clarifying information supported by documentation or declaration where possible regarding any appeal pending in petitioner's case. Respondents are further directed to address the relevant detention authority in consideration of Avilez v. Garland 69 F.4th 525, 530-531 (9th Cir. 2023), in which the court explained that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a final order of removal while 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c) apply to detention during the pendency of administrative and judicial removal proceedings. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Minute Order

#11

Mar 03, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by Respondents re 3/2/2026 Minute Order, 8 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Correspondence with BIA, # 2 Exhibit Automated Case Information Homepage, # 3 Exhibit Notice of Appeal, # 4 Exhibit DHS Portal Screenshot, # 5 Exhibit Immigration Court Practice Manual 7.2)(Rodriguez, Camilo) Modified on 3/4/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#12

Mar 03, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#13

Mar 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/5/2026: On 2/25/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ). On 2/27/2026, respondents filed their opposition thereto (Doc. No. 8 ). Respondents argue therein that petitioner's detention is lawful pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (Id. at 3-6.) Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Id. at 1.) At the court's direction, respondents filed supplemental briefing (Doc. No. 11 ) on 3/3/2026, clarifying certain factual discrepancies and the asserted detention authority in this case in consideration of the decision in Avilez v. Garland 69 F.4th 525, 530-531 (9th Cir. 2023) (explaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a final order of removal while 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and (c) apply to detention during the pendency of administrative and judicial removal proceedings). Here, petitioner is subject to a final removal order dated 1/23/2024. (Doc. No. [8-1] at 5-6.) While petitioner has a pending appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings, it does not appear that there is an appeal pending of the removal order itself. (Doc. Nos. [11-3] at 1; [11-4] at 1.) The court therefore finds that the relevant detention authority is 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). See Diouf v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1222, 1229-1230 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the petitioner's appeals challenging the denial of his motions to reopen did not change the date of his final removal order and that his detention was authorized under § 1231, not § 1226). Petitioner was detained on 9/26/2025 and served a notice of Custody Determination. (Id. at 13.) Respondents state that petitioner was re-detained due to a criminal arrest occurring on 7/10/2025, although they have not provided the court with the notice provided to petitioner to support this contention. (Id.) Petitioner has provided documentation that the criminal case stemming from the arrest was dismissed on 9/18/2025. (Doc. No. 1 at 23.) The court finds analogous and persuasive its prior analysis in Uzzhina v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01594-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3458787, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), where the court found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") has a duty to follow its own regulations and that failure to do so may result in a due process violation, and incorporates that analysis herein. The evidence before the court indicates that petitioner was not afforded an informal interview at which she would have had the opportunity to respond to the reasons for her release revocation, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). In this regard, the court finds that petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her continued detention violates due process because ICE has failed to provide her with any opportunity to contest the reason for her detention for over five months. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning above and as stated in Uzzhina, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ) 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 she was subject to immediately prior to her 9/26/2025 detention; (2) respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying petitioner's re-detention. 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. Petitioner's motion to expedite consideration (Doc. No. 3 ) is DENIED as duplicative of her motion for temporary restraining order. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) and petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) are referred to Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 13 Minute Order served on Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk JRM)

Mar 05, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 05, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for TRO

Mar 06, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 06, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Minute Order served on Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

#14

Mar 11, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Mar 11, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 11, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 14 Order served on Galina Titova. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

Mar 16, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Unable to Forward: 13 Minute Order sent to Galina Titova. Notice of Change of Address due by 4/23/2026. (Deputy Clerk OML)

#15

Mar 17, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden. (Rodriguez, Camilo) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#16

Mar 18, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service