Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02087

#1

Mar 16, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Warden by Tinashe Ndori. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#2

Mar 16, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Tinashe Ndori. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#3

Mar 16, 2026

MOTION to APPOINT COUNSEL by Tinashe Ndori. (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#4

Mar 17, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 4/20/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk JAW) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#5

Mar 17, 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: 03/17/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Tinashe Ndori. (Deputy Clerk JAW)

Mar 17, 2026

Service by Mail

#6

Mar 19, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel AND Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Mar 19, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 6 Order on Motions served on Tinashe Ndori. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

Mar 19, 2026

Service by Mail

#7

Mar 26, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#8

Mar 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/26/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner's habeas petition] as law and justice require."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 3/31/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders listed above. To the extent Respondents assert Petitioner has a final removal order, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders in Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025), Vuong v. Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025), and El-Ghazaly v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). Petitioner may file a Reply by 4/14/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition. The matter is not set for a hearing though the court may set one should it later be determined that a hearing is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

#9

Mar 26, 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. (Deputy Clerk VLC) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

Mar 26, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 26, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings

Mar 26, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 8, served on Tinashe Ndori. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS)

#10

Mar 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/28/2026: The court has been notified of counsel's contact information, pursuant to the Order at ECF 6 . Attorney Carolyn Wiggin is hereby appointed as counsel for Petitioner <nunc pro tunc to 3/27/2026. The Courtroom Deputy shall update the docket to reflect Assistant Federal Defender Carolyn Wiggin, 801 I Street, 3rd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, 916-498-5700, Carolyn_Wiggin@fd.org, as counsel for Petitioner in this matter. (Text Only Entry) (cc: Federal Defender Habeas Appointment) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 03/28/2026)

Mar 28, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys

#11

Mar 31, 2026

OPPOSITION to 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Warden. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 Declaration of Moradi, # 2 Ex. 2 Notice to Appear, # 3 Ex. 3 Decision to Continue Detention, # 4 Ex. 4 Notice of Alien File Custody Review, # 5 Ex. 5 Rap Sheet)(Ahmed, Ihsan) (Docket Text Modified on 4/8/2026 by CRS.) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

#12

Apr 03, 2026

REPLY in support of 7 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 1 Petition by Tinashe Ndori. (Wiggin, Carolyn) Modified on 4/15/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#13

Apr 08, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on April 8, 2026: In Respondents' 11 Opposition to Petitioner's 7 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal and is therefore detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). (Doc. No. 11 at 4-5.) Under § 1231(a), a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal is subject to mandatory detention for a period of 90-days (the "Removal Period") following the finalization of their removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)-(2). Following the Removal Period, a noncitizen who, as relevant here, has been determined "to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with the order of removal," may continue to be detained pending removal. Id. § 1231(a)(6). However, in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court limited the Government's ability to indefinitely detain noncitizens under § 1231(a) by holding that the government's detention of a noncitizen under that section is presumptively reasonable for a period of six months, after which if "the [noncitizen] provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing." Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Here, Petitioner's removal order became final on September 2, 2025. (Doc. No. 12 at 3.) Thus, his removal period expired on December 1, 2025. Id. Under Zadvydas, his detention remains presumptively reasonable until six months after this date, i.e., June 1, 2026. Thus, Petitioner's continued detention is presumptively reasonable, and Petitioner has not provided sufficient reason to overcome this presumption of reasonability. Accordingly, Petitioner's 7 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED without prejudice. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#14

Apr 12, 2026

Reconsideration

#15

Apr 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued on 4/27/2026 by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: On 4/8/2026, the court issued an 13 Order denying Petitioner's 7 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order because Petitioner's immigration detention was presumptively reasonable pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Specifically, Petitioner's removal order became final on 9/2/2025, thus his removal period expired on 12/1/2025, and pursuant to Zadvydas, his detention remained presumptively reasonable until six months after expiration of his removal period, i.e. 6/1/2026. On 4/12/2026, Petitioner filed a 14 Motion for Reconsideration in which he argues that the court's ruling was legally erroneous because the Ninth Circuit in Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001) interpreted Zadvydas as creating a period of presumptively reasonable detention for six months beginning with the finalization of the order of removal rather than the expiration of the removal period. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit held that the Court in Zadvydas "read the statute to permit a 'presumptively reasonable' detention period of six months after a final order of removal--that is, three months after the statutory removal period has ended." Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1102 n.5 (9th Cir. 2001). In light of that binding Ninth Circuit precedent, Petitioner's presumptive period of reasonable detention has expired under Zadvydas, and Petitioner's 14 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Further, because Petitioner remains detained beyond the Zadvydas period, and because Petitioner has provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, (Doc. No. 1 at 4), Respondents "must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing" to warrant Petitioner's continued detention. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Respondents allege that their "request for a travel document for Petitioner to [his native] Zimbabwe is still pending" and that Respondents "intend[] to remove Petitioner to Zimbabwe subsequent to receiving a travel document." (Doc. No. 11-1 at 2.) However, as this court has previously found, an allegation that ICE has begun the process of requesting travel documents from a noncitizen's native country is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future under Zadvydas. See Truong v. Andrews, No. 1:26-cv-00449-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 849763, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2026). Accordingly, upon reconsideration, Petitioner's 7 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Tinashe Ndori (A-099-341-766) under the same conditions he was subject to before his detention on 7/3/2025; and (2) Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, compliance with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) for revocation of release, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory procedures. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE - Golden State Annex) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Reconsideration AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings