Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01839

#1

Mar 06, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by Claudia Orellana. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13001069) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sulfab, Maisoun) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#2

Mar 06, 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: 03/06/2026)

#3

Mar 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: 03/06/2026)

#4

Mar 09, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#5

Mar 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/10/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 4 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 4 motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 4 motion for temporary restraining order 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 3/11/2026. 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 Correa-Correa v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01283-DAD-CKD, 2026 WL 482748 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026), 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: 03/10/2026)

Mar 10, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Mar 11, 2026

Dismiss

#7

Mar 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/12/2026: On 3/9/2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ). On 3/11/2026 respondents filed a motion to dismiss and a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court construes as also opposing the issuance of a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 6 .) The court finds analogous and persuasive, and incorporates herein, its reasoning in Quichimbo-Jimenez, v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, No. 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB, 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026), in which the court found that the petitioner would be entitled to a bond hearing based on the statutory interpretation set forth in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), judgment entered sub nom. Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). Here, petitioner alleges she most recently entered the United States without inspection in 2023. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on February 13, 2026. (Doc. No. 4 at 4.) Petitioner initially argues that she is subject to a re-instated final removal order, but respondents have provided documentation suggesting that petitioner misunderstood her prior departure from the United States and that she is not subject to a final removal order. (Doc. No. [6-2] at 3.) Based on the foregoing, it appears that petitioner is subject to discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is therefore likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her continued detention absent a bond hearing is unlawful. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Quichimbo-Jimenez, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ) is GRANTED in part, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order; (2) at least two (2) days prior to the date of the hearing, respondents shall provide notice of the date and time of the bond hearing to petitioner and petitioner's counsel; (3) within three (3) days of the bond hearing, respondents shall file a status report in this case confirming that petitioner has been provided the bond hearing as ordered; and (4) petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order ordering respondents to immediately release her is DENIED without prejudice. 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 parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction, and indicate whether they oppose the court resolving the merits of the underlying habeas petition based upon the briefing submitted as to that motion, no later than fourteen (14) days from 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