Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01867

#1

Mar 09, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Mar 09, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Mar 09, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

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 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, because petitioner's counsel has indicated that counsel has served respondents with the motion, petition, and accompanying papers at usacae.ecf2241@usdoj.gov, respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by tomorrow, 3/10/2026, at 5:00 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 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)

#5

Mar 09, 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: 03/09/2026)

#6

Mar 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2026: (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 tomorrow, 3/10/2026, 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 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 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 CGH) (Entered: 03/09/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Mar 10, 2026

Dismiss

#8

Mar 10, 2026

RESPONSE to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Respondents. (Ahmed, Ihsan) Modified on 3/11/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#9

Mar 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/10/2026: On 3/9/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 3/10/2026, respondents filed an opposition to the pending motion in which they argue that petitioner is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) Nonetheless, respondents concede that they "do not have legal arguments to distinguish this case from prior orders issued by the Court, nor do Respondents find material factual differences between this case and those identified by the Court." (Id.) Respondents do not oppose converting the pending motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) Here, petitioner originally entered the United States in 2017 at 17 years old as an unaccompanied minor, and after a brief detention, was released into the country under the care of his U.S. sponsor by the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") on or about 12/15/2017. On or about 1/9/2026, petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials without any prior notice or explanation. Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the district court's order in P.A.H.E. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01164-DJC-JDP, 2026 WL 451662 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026), where the court found that because the petitioner was initially released from immigration custody as an unaccompanied minor by the ORR, that the TVPRA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1232, therefore governed the petitioner's release, and accordingly concluded that the petitioner was entitled to immediate release because he was denied the "process that should have been afforded to him prior to detention." Here, as in P.A.H.E., when petitioner initially encountered immigration officials after he initially entered the United States at 17 years old, petitioner was released by the ORR as an unaccompanied minor before being re-detained on or about 1/9/2026 without notice or a pre-detention hearing. Several other courts have also concluded that an immigration detainee cannot be subsequently subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) when they were previously released into the care of a sponsor by the ORR. See e.g., P.A.H.E., 2026 WL 451662, at *2 ("Therefore, Petitioner is clearly subject to section 1232 and section 1225's mandatory detention provision does not apply."); R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2686866, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025) ("However, respondents' argument that the government could re-detain petitioner under § 1225(b), even though she was previously designated an unaccompanied minor child, is unpersuasive. The detention of unaccompanied minor children is governed by the TVPRA, which does not mandate detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2)(A)-(B)."). Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in P.A.H.E. and R.D.T.M., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his re-detention on 1/9/2026; 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 respondents will have the burden of establishing that petitioner is a danger or flight risk. 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: 03/10/2026)

Mar 10, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

Mar 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 3/16/2026. Parties must review this MINUTE ORDER Document, which is a scheduling order. If additional briefing is needed to decide the petition on the merits, within 7 days of the date of this order, respondents may file an answer. If respondents do not file an answer by this deadline, the petition will be deemed submitted on the record currently before the court without any additional briefing. If respondents file an answer, petitioner may file a traverse within 7 days of the filing of respondents' answer. [See attached for details.] (Deputy Clerk AW) (Entered: 03/16/2026)