Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02064

#1

Mar 16, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Kristi Noem by Eyhember Stiben Guerrero Salcedo. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13039713) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#2

Mar 16, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Eyhember Stiben Guerrero Salcedo. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 TRO Checklist, # 6 TRO Proposed Order, # 7 PI Proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#3

Mar 16, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/20/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#4

Mar 16, 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: 03/16/2026)

#5

Mar 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/16/2026: 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, petitioner's counsel has indicated that counsel has already served respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. Accordingly, counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance and file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by tomorrow, 3/17/2026, at 5 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 Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), 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 PAB) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Mar 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/19/2026: On 3/16/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On the same day, the court issued an order directing respondents to file an opposition to the pending motion by 3/17/2026. Despite having entered an appearance in this action and submitting an unrelated form (Doc. No. 4 ) to the court, respondents have yet to file an opposition to the pending motion. Petitioner entered the United States on or about 9/5/2022, was encountered by Customs and Border Patrol officials, and was released into this country on parole pursuant to § 1182(d)(5), with enrollment in Alternatives to Detention as a condition of his release. Petitioner contends that he has always been compliant with the conditions of his release. On 12/2/2025, petitioner was re-detained at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office during a routine check-in, where he was neither provided notice nor an explanation for his re-detention. Having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner's detention and his arguments made in support of the pending motion, the court finds instructive the reasoning outlined in its prior order Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), where the court concluded that, under substantially similar circumstances, re-detaining the petitioner without a hearing where the petitioner was previously released on parole violated due process. Accordingly, the court adopts the reasoning outlined in Chavarria and GRANTS petitioner's 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 12/2/2025; (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 an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden of establishing that the petitioner is a danger or flight risk 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 days from the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

Mar 19, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO