Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01863

#1

Mar 06, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Shaho Anvariziaei. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13003296) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet for Petition, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits in Support of Petition)(Caravez, Damian) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#2

Mar 09, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/13/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#3

Mar 09, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Shaho Anvariziaei. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 TRO Checklist, # 3 Affidavit Describing Effort to Notify Respondents, # 4 Exhibits, # 5 Proposed Order)(Caravez, Damian) Modified on 3/10/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/09/2026)

#4

Mar 10, 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: 03/10/2026)

#5

Mar 10, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#6

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 3 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 3 motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 3 motion for temporary restraining order by 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 Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 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

#7

Mar 11, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

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 temporary restraining order in which he alleges that he entered the United States with a valid visitor's visa, and was detained by ICE on 3/5/2026 without any warning, paperwork, or legitimate reason. (Doc. No. 3 -1 at 4.) On 3/10/2026, the court set a briefing schedule on petitioner's pending motion and ordered respondents to substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the situation addressed by this court's decision in Rangel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00084-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 73996 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026). (Doc. No. 6.) In their opposition (Doc. No. 7 ), respondents argue that this case is distinguishable from Rangel because here petitioner has not yet requested a bond hearing from respondents through administrative channels. (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) Pursuant to the reasoning as stated in Hernandez Burruel v. Murray, No. 1:25-cv-01569-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3240356 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025), the court waives the prudential exhaustion requirement for purposes of granting a bond hearing. Respondents also state they do not oppose conversion of the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as set forth in Rangel and Hernandez Burruel, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED in part, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this order; (2) respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner and petitioner's counsel with notice of the date and time of the bond hearing at least two (2) days prior to the bond hearing; and (3) petitioner's request for a temporary restraining order requiring respondent to immediately release him from confinement 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 petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#9

Mar 12, 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: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Mar 16, 2026

Minute Order

#11

Mar 20, 2026

Notice (Other)