Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01917

#1

Mar 10, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by Atanda TK. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13013607) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sulfab, Maisoun) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#2

Mar 10, 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: 03/10/2026)

#3

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)

#4

Mar 10, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#5

Mar 11, 2026

FIRST AMENDED PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS by Atanda TK.(Sulfab, Maisoun) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#6

Mar 11, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Atanda TK. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sulfab, Maisoun) (Entered: 03/11/2026)

#7

Mar 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/12/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 6 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 6 motion for temporary restraining order. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 6 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Friday, 3/13/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) and Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 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 PAB) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#8

Mar 12, 2026

ANSWER (Response) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, OPPOSITION to 6 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and OPPOSITION to Preliminary Injunction by All Respondents. (Ahmed, Ihsan) Modified on 3/17/2026 (KS). (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order

#9

Mar 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/16/2026: On 3/11/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order wherein petitioner alleges that he entered the United States on 11/27/2021 and was apprehended by U.S. immigration officers, he was subsequently paroled, and in January 2026 ICE detained petitioner without any warning, paperwork, or legitimate reason. (Doc. No. 6 .) On 3/12/2026, the court set a briefing schedule on petitioner's pending motion and ordered respondent to substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the situations addressed by this court's decisions in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) and Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025). (Doc. No. 7.) That same day, respondents filed an opposition to petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 8 .) Therein, respondents state 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. at 2.) Further, respondents state they do not oppose converting petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) Pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Rocha Chavarria and Singh, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order is hereby CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his January 2026 re-detention; and (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a danger to the community or a 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 habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) and motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4 ) are referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk JRM) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

Mar 24, 2026

Order

#11

Mar 24, 2026

TRAVERSE to 8 Answer by Atanda TK. (Sulfab, Maisoun) Modified on 3/30/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#12

Apr 13, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text only) signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/13/2026: After petitioner initiated this action, the court granted injunctive relief by way of ordering petitioner's release. (ECF No. 9 .) Still pending is petitioner's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 5 .) The primary dispute between the parties is whether re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights. I have addressed this issue previously and have consistently found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates a noncitizen's due process rights. See, e.g., Amarillo v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-1623-JDP, 2026 WL 279856 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026). After considering the parties' filings, and for the reasons stated in Amarillo and similar cases, I find that petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated and hereby RECOMMEND the following: (1) the first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 5, be GRANTED; (2) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 9, be made permanent; (3) respondents' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, be DENIED as moot by the filing of the first amended petition; and (4) the Clerk of Court be ordered to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response shall be served and filed within seven days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

Apr 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#13

Apr 17, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#14

May 04, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#15

May 04, 2026

Judgment