Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01769

#1

Mar 04, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Kristi Noem by Max Noel Asaah Azaomo Nkeangnang. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12990534) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#2

Mar 04, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Max Noel Asaah Azaomo Nkeangnang. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 TRO Checklist, # 6 TRO Proposed Order, # 7 PI Proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 03/04/2026)

#3

Mar 04, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/6/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk CRM) (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, counsel for petitioner has indicated that counsel has served respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. Accordingly, counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance and file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by tomorrow, 3/5/2026, at 5 PM. 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. (Entered: 03/04/2026)

Mar 04, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Mar 05, 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: 03/05/2026)

#6

Mar 05, 2026

OPPOSITION by Respondents to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Rodriguez, Camilo) Modified on 3/6/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#7

Mar 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/6/2026: On March 3/4/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 3/5/2026, respondents filed an opposition to that motion in which they argue that petitioner is an "applicant for admission" subject to mandatory detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officials pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) because petitioner entered the United States illegally. (Id. at 1.) However, respondents also concede that "the factual and legal issues present here are not substantively distinguishable to Ayala Cajina or other similar cases[.]" (Id. at 2.) Respondents have also indicated that they do not oppose converting petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner entered the United States on or about 2/3/2023 when he was detained at the border by immigration officials and released into the country on the same day. On 1/31/2026, ICE re-detained petitioner at an ICE office after he voluntarily presented himself for a scheduled appointment. Petitioner contends that he has been fully compliant with the conditions of his release and has no criminal history. There is no indication that petitioner was provided advanced notice that he would be re-detained and he received no hearing prior to his re-detention. Having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner's detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds instructive the reasoning outlined in its prior order Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court held that re-detaining the petitioner without a hearing where the petitioner was initially released from immigration custody shortly after being detained at the border violated due process. Accordingly, the court CONVERTS petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTS it as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody under the same conditions he was subject to prior to his 1/31/2026 re-detention; (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden of establishing that petitioner is either a flight risk or 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 writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ), is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Mar 10, 2026

Minute Order