Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01741

#1

Mar 03, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Mar 03, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by J. I. R.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Proposed Order, # 9 Checklist)(Nuno, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#3

Mar 03, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by J. I. R.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nuno, Jacqueline) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#4

Mar 03, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#5

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)

#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 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/4/2026: The Court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). The Court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the Court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner's habeas petition] as law and justice require."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 3/6/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the Court's prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 3/9/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the Court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's counsel shall do so by no later than 5:00 PM on 3/4/2026. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#8

Mar 04, 2026

AFFIDAVIT of SERVICE re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 3 Motion to Proceed under a Pseudonym by J. I. R.C. (Nuno, Jacqueline) Modified on 3/9/2026 (KS). (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#9

Mar 04, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#10

Mar 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/4/2026: In Respondents' 9 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). However, Respondents acknowledge the decisions from this court in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and acknowledge that it is not "substantively distinguishable" from those cases. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Selis, Labrador-Prato, and D.L.C., Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 7 days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. This Order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal. Further, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than 3/6/2026, as to why this court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as this Order. Petitioner may file a response thereto by no later than 3/9/2026. Respondents may file a reply to Petitioner's response by no later than 3/10/2026. If the parties agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#11

Mar 04, 2026

OPPPOSITION to Preliminary Injunction and RESPONSE to 10 Minute Order filed by All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) (Docket Text Modified on 3/5/2026 by CRS.) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Mar 04, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

#12

Mar 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued on 3/5/2026 by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: On 3/4/2026, the court issued an 10 Order granting Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and requiring Respondents to show cause why the court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the Temporary Restraining Order. That same day, Respondents filed a 11 Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that they have nothing further to add to the arguments raised in their Opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order. The standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, for the same reasons as those stated in the 10 Order granting a Temporary Restraining Order, the court finds Petitioner has sufficiently shown that all four Winter factors weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the 10 Temporary Restraining Order and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#13

Mar 18, 2026

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

Apr 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#17

Apr 16, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations