Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01776

#1

Mar 05, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Kristi Noem by Niangong Zou. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12991729) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#2

Mar 05, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#3

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)

#4

Mar 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/6/2026*: A review of the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus reveals that petitioner is seeking "an Order to Show Cause ordering Respondents to show cause why this Petition should not be granted within three days[.]" (Doc. No. 1 at 18.) Petitioner is directed to file a motion for temporary restraining order if they seek emergency relief. (Deputy Clerk PAB) Modified on 3/6/2026 (PAB). (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Mar 07, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#6

Mar 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 5 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 5 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 3/10/2026, by 5:00 PM respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 5 motion for temporary restraining order in which they 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 and whether they oppose the court resolving the merits of the underlying habeas petition. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Mar 12, 2026

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Kristi Noem by Niangong Zou. (Morrison, Curtis) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#8

Mar 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/12/2026: On 3/7/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 5 .) On 3/9/2026, the court issued an order directing respondents to file a written opposition to the pending motion by 3/10/2026. To date, respondents have failed to file an opposition despite having appearing in this action. (See Doc. No. 3 .) Petitioner entered the United States in 2023 where he was initially encountered by immigration officials, briefly detained, and released into the country on his own recognizance on 7/5/2023. Petitioner contends that he was re-detained by immigration officials at a regularly scheduled check-in with immigration authorities on 1/14/2026 without prior notice or a hearing. Petitioner contends that he has no prior criminal history. Having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner's detention, the court finds analogous 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 concluded that respondents' decision to re-detain the petitioner without prior notice or a hearing when respondents had previously released the petitioner into the country on their own recognizance violated due process. Accordingly, the court GRANTS petitioner's 5 motion for temporary restraining order as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody under the same conditions that he was subject to prior to his re-detention on or about 1/14/2026; (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 by clear and convincing evidence. Under the circumstances of the case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO