Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01723

#1

Mar 03, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Tonya Andrews, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem by Leopoldo Carbrera Alcaraz.(Gomez, Jaime) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#2

Mar 03, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE to Jaime A. Gomez: 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 AML) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#3

Mar 03, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Leopoldo Carbrera Alcaraz. (Attachments: # 1 Points and Authorities, # 2 TRO Checklist, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Declaration Attorney, # 5 Declaration Petitioner, # 6 Verified Complaint)(Gomez, Jaime) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#4

Mar 03, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Leopoldo Carbrera Alcaraz. (Gomez, Jaime) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#5

Mar 03, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/6/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#6

Mar 03, 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: 03/03/2026)

#7

Mar 03, 2026

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Leopoldo Cabrera Alcaraz for attorney Laura Polstein to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Gomez, Jaime) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#8

Mar 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/3/2026: 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, 3/4/2026, 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, 3/5/2026. 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 Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), or Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), 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: 03/03/2026)

Mar 03, 2026

Minute Order

Mar 03, 2026

RECEIPT number ACAEDC-12980933 for $5.00 fbo Leopoldo Carbrera Alcaraz from Jaime A. Gomez. (Deputy Clerk AML)

#9

Mar 04, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#10

Mar 04, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#11

Mar 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2026: (Text Only Entry); GRANTING 3 Motion for TRO. On 3/3/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ). 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 decisions in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release following his parole, and Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), where the court concluded that because the petitioner had previously been paroled, he could not be re-detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Here, petitioner most recently entered the United States on or about 10/24/2024 and was released on parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) on 12/4/2024. (Doc. No. 1 at 7.) On 11/16/2025, petitioner was re-detained at a scheduled Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") appointment. (Id. at 7.) On 3/4/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 10 ) to petitioner's pending motion. Respondents concede therein that this matter is not substantively distinguishable from the court's prior precedent cited above. (Doc. No. 10 at 1). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the pending motion for a temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Id. at 1-2). Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Rocha Chavarria and Singh, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) 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 he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention on 11/16/2025; (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, where respondents shall bear the burden of demonstrating that petitioner poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community. 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 ) and counsel's pending pro hac vice application (Doc. No. 7 ) are referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#12

Mar 24, 2026

Order

#13

Mar 31, 2026

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#14

Apr 06, 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: 04/06/2026)

#15

Apr 07, 2026

TRAVERSE/REPLY to 13 Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Leopoldo Cabrera Alcaraz. (Gomez, Jaime) Modified on 4/8/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#16

Apr 07, 2026

Notice of Errata

#17

Apr 16, 2026

Order on Application for Pro Hac Vice

#18

Apr 16, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text only) signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/16/2026: After petitioner initiated this action, the court granted injunctive relief by way of ordering petitioner's release. (ECF No. 11 .) Still pending is petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 .) The primary dispute between the parties is whether re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights. I have addressed this issue previously and have consistently found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates a noncitizen's due process rights. See, e.g., Amarillo v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-1623-JDP, 2026 WL 279856 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026). After considering the parties' filings, and for the reasons stated in Amarillo and similar cases, I find that petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated and hereby RECOMMEND the following: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be GRANTED; (2) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 11, be made permanent; and (3) the Clerk of Court be ordered to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response shall be served and filed within seven days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

Apr 16, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#21

Jun 27, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#22

Jun 30, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#23

Jun 30, 2026

Judgment