Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01749

#1

Mar 03, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Pardeep Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12985591) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Terkiana, Jagbir) Modified on 3/6/2026 (KS). (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#2

Mar 03, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Pardeep Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 TRO Checklist)(Terkiana, Jagbir) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

#3

Mar 04, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/6/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#4

Mar 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/4/2026: (Text Only Entry).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 today 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM tomorrow, 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 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. 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 CGH) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#5

Mar 04, 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: 03/04/2026)

#6

Mar 04, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Pardeep Singh. (Terkiana, Jagbir) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Mar 05, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to 2 Motion for Preliminary InjunctionMotion for Temporary Restraining Order, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Form I-213)(Rodriguez, Camilo) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#8

Mar 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/6/2026: On 3/3/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 3/5/2026, respondents filed an opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to the motion. In that opposition, respondents argue only that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention by virtue of being present in the United States, an argument that the undersigned has rejected on several recent occasions. See Wasef v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-01078-DAD-JDP (HC), 2026 WL 392389 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026) (rejecting the respondents' interpretation of § 1225). Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the undersigned's previous orders in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), in which the court concluded that a prior release of the petitioner created an implicit promise by the respondents that the petitioner's release would only be revoked on the basis that he failed to comply with the terms of his release, and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), in which the court concluded that previously releasing the petitioner on his own recognizance created a reliance interest such that the petitioner was entitled to the due process available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, petitioner arrived in the United States on 5/19/2023, encountered immigration authorities, and on 5/21/2023 was released on his own recognizance. (Doc. No. 1 at 2, 3.) On 12/10/2025, petitioner was detained by immigration officers. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) In their opposition, respondents state that they do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Perez and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondent's custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his re-detention on 12/10/2025; and (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 respondent shall bear the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence 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. This action is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO