Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-00592

#1

Feb 26, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden by Eduardo Enrique Troya Perez. (Deputy Clerk RRB) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#2

Feb 26, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. (Deputy Clerk RRB) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#3

Feb 26, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/2/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk RRB) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#4

Feb 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/26/2026: 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, 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 2, 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, 2/27/2026 at 5 PM. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Monday, 3/2/2026. 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 Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 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. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#5

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

RECEIPT number 200017280 for $5.00 for Eduardo Enrique Troya Perez. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

Feb 26, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Eduardo Enrique Troya Perez. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Feb 26, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Eduardo Enrique Troya Perez. (Deputy Clerk RRB)

Feb 26, 2026

Minute Order

Feb 26, 2026

Service by Mail

#6

Feb 27, 2026

ANSWER (Return) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Warden. (Andrews, Anthony) Modified on 3/5/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#7

Mar 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/3/2026: On 2/26/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, 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 in this case would distinguish it from the circumstances addressed in this court's recent decision in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026), in which the court addressed the applicability of Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), judgment entered sub nom. Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). Here, petitioner was detained by immigration officials on 10/22/2025 inside the United States. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) On 2/27/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 6 ) to petitioner's motion. Respondents concede therein that there do not appear to be substantive differences between this case and the circumstances addressed in this court's prior decision in Rangel. (Doc. No. 6 at 2). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the motion for temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Id.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Rangel, 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 provide petitioner a bond hearing within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order; (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; and (3) petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order ordering respondents to immediately release him is DENIED without prejudice. 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 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

Mar 03, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 03, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 7 Minute Order served on Eduardo Enrique Troya Perez. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Mar 03, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#8

Mar 13, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Warden. (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#9

Mar 24, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#10

Mar 26, 2026

Order

Mar 26, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 10 Order, served on Eduardo Enrique Troya Perez. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

Mar 26, 2026

Service by Mail

#11

Mar 28, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#12

Mar 31, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/31/2026: On 3/3/2026, the court converted petitioner's pro se motion for a temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction, granted that motion in part, and ordered that respondents provide petitioner with a bond hearing. (Doc. No. 7 .) On 3/13/2026 respondents filed a status report stating that petitioner withdrew his request for a bond hearing. (Doc. No. 8 .) On 3/23/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for release or a new bond hearing, which the court construes as a motion to enforce judgement, arguing that he was provided a bond hearing but that the bond hearing was deficient. (Doc. No. 9 .) On 3/28/2026, respondents filed an opposition to petitioner's motion to enforce judgment in which they assert that petitioner withdrew his request for a bond hearing on 3/10/2026. (Doc. No. 11 .) Respondents are directed to inform the court no later than 4/3/2026 whether petitioner has been provided a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on the merits of his detention at any time after the court's order dated 3/3/2026 (Doc. No. 7 ). (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 12 Minute Order served on Eduardo Enrique Troya Perez. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Mar 31, 2026

Minute Order

Mar 31, 2026

Service by Mail

#13

Apr 03, 2026

RESPONSE by Warden to 12 Minute Order,,,,. (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#14

Apr 21, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#15

Apr 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/22/2026: (Text Only Entry); DENYING 9 Motion ; GRANTING 14 Motion. On 2/26/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) That same day the court issued an initial scheduling order regarding petitioner's motion in which the court ordered that respondent not "take any action to remove petitioner from the United States or to move petitioner out of the Eastern District of California." (Doc. No. 4 .) On 3/3/2026 the court converted petitioner's pro se motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) into a motion for preliminary injunction, granted that motion, and ordered that respondents provide petitioner a bond hearing within 10 days of the date of the order. (Doc. No. 7 .) On 3/13/2026, respondents filed a status report informing the court that petitioner withdrew his request for a bond hearing through counsel on 3/10/2026. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) On 3/23/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for release or, alternatively, a new bond hearing, in which he alleges that an immigration judge ("IJ") conducted a bond hearing and improperly applied the burden of proof. (Doc. No. 9 at 1-2.) Petitioner also provides documentation suggesting that, on 3/16/2026, he appealed an IJ's decision to deny him bond on 3/10/2026. (Id. at 11-24.) On 3/28/2026, respondents filed an opposition to petitioner's request for release or a bond hearing, in which they reassert that petitioner withdrew his request for a bond hearing on 3/10/2026. (Doc. No. 11 .) On 4/3/2026, respondents filed a supplemental response and included a transcript from petitioner's hearing before the IJ on 3/10/2026 in which, through counsel, petitioner withdrew his request for a bond hearing. (Doc. No. 13 at 9-12.) Respondents also provided a transcript of a hearing before the IJ on 3/27/2026, in which petitioner's counsel was relieved, and petitioner elected to accept voluntary departure to Panama. (Id. at 25-48.) Respondents further assert that petitioner does not have any pending applications for relief before the immigration court or the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). (Id. at 2.) Based on the foregoing, the court will deny petitioner's motion for immediate release or, alternatively, a bond hearing because it has been established that petitioner withdrew his request for a bond hearing on 3/10/2026 and has not renewed his request for such a bond hearing before the IJ. Finally, on 4/21/2026, respondents filed a motion to dissolve the court's order not to transfer or remove petitioner. (Doc. No. 14 .) Respondents state therein that petitioner is scheduled to depart the United States to Panama on 4/24/2026. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, petitioner's motion for release or a bond hearing (Doc. No 9 ) is DENIED. Respondents' motion to dissolve the court's order directing respondent not to transfer or remove petitioner (Doc. No. 14 ) is GRANTED the court hereby dissolves the order that required respondent not to transfer or remove petitioner (Doc. No. 4 ). Respondents are DIRECTED to file a status report within seven (7) days of petitioner's scheduled departure informing the court whether petitioner has departed the United States. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

Apr 22, 2026

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

#16

Apr 27, 2026

Notice (Other)

#17

Apr 28, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Warden. (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 04/28/2026)