Active
Case Information
Filed: March 17, 2026
Assigned to:
Dena M. Coggins
Referred to:
Sean C. Riordan
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Active
Last Activity:
June 24, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
Mar 17, 2026
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Tonya Andrews, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin by Sahil Rana. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13049186) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 03/17/2026)
Main Document:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Mar 17, 2026
MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Sahil Rana. (Attachments: # 1 Notice, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 03/17/2026)
Main Document:
Temporary Restraining Order
#3
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 MCF) (Entered: 03/17/2026)
Main Document:
Prisoner New Case Documents for DJ Presider
#4
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)
Main Document:
CONSENT/DECLINE
#5
Mar 18, 2026
MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/18/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count Two of 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 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 3/20/2026. 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. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 3/23/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count Two only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in 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: 03/18/2026)
Mar 18, 2026
Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings
#6
Mar 19, 2026
OPPOSITION 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Respondents . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I-213s)(Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 3/20/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/19/2026)
Main Document:
OPPOSITION
#7
Mar 24, 2026
REPLY by Sahil Rana re 6 Response. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Declaration Gurpreet Kaur, Esq.)(Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 03/24/2026)
Main Document:
REPLY
#8
Apr 06, 2026
MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on April 6, 2026: In Respondents' 6 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and they attempt to differentiate this case from the cases cited in the court's 5 Order, by arguing that the Government has demonstrated changed circumstances warranting his re-detention. (See Doc. No. 6 at 2) (citing Calvillo v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00569-DC-CSK (HC), 2026 WL 253627 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2026). Specifically, Respondents argue that following his release from immigration detention, Petitioner "was arrested for driving under the influence" and "did not attend a state court hearing" relating to that arrest. (See Doc. No. 6 at 3.) Respondents argue that "Petitioner had fourteen [alternative to detention] violations which show that he's a flight risk," but they cite to immigration records that refer to Petitioner as "Sandu," which is not Petitioner's name, and those records repeatedly switch between male and female pronouns when referring to Petitioner. (See Doc. No. 6-1 at 5, 6.) Respondents do not account for these discrepancies, calling into question the veracity of the only document they rely on for support of their arguments. Additionally, Respondents argue Petitioner was detained after he did not attend a criminal court hearing relating to his 2023 DUI arrest, but "certified court records establish that Petitioner's criminal case was fully resolved on February 14, 2024, well before the alleged missed hearing," and the "March 10, 2026 hearing referenced [] was not a criminal liability hearing at all" but rather a "post-conviction expungement/dismissal proceeding" for which Petitioner's Defense Counsel appeared, and Petitioner's presence was lawfully waived. (See Doc. Nos. 7 at 4-5; 7-1; 7-2.) Accordingly, the court finds that Petitioner's claim is indistinguishable from Selis Tinoco, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) and that Respondents' basis for Petitioner's re-detention is pretextual. Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his re-detention violated his Fifth Amendment Right to Due Process. Thus, Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED as follows: (1) Petitioner Sahil Rana (A-220-750-747) shall be RELEASED immediately from the Respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. Moreover, in light of Respondents' non-opposition to treating Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (See Doc. No. 6 at 5), and given that the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction, Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Order on the Golden State Annex Detention Facility. This case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE-Golden State Annex) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 04/06/2026)
Apr 06, 2026
Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings
#9
Jun 22, 2026
MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 6/22/2026: In light of the referral of petitioner's § 2241 petition that is pending before the Court, the parties are directed to submit any additional briefs on the merits, or any stipulation as to how this petition should be resolved, within 14 days from the date of this order. Following expiration of the deadline set herein, the § 2241 petition will be deemed submitted on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). (Deputy Clerk SH) (Entered: 06/22/2026)
Jun 22, 2026
Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings
#10
Jun 24, 2026
Notice (Other)
Main Document:
Notice (Other)
Parties
Party
Party
Party
Party
Party
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
Firm