Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-00966

#1

Mar 18, 2026

2241 PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against all Respondents by Jose Armando Duron Martinez. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#2

Mar 18, 2026

EX PARTE APPLICATION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jose Armando Duron Martinez. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#3

Mar 18, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/20/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#4

Mar 18, 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: 03/18/2026)

#5

Mar 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/18/2026: 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. In light of petitioner's pro se status, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED 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. 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 Friday, 3/20/2026, 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 decisions in Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 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: 03/18/2026)

Mar 18, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 5 Minute Order served on Jose Armando Duron Martinez. (Deputy Clerk JRM)

Mar 18, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Jose Armando Duron Martinez. (Deputy Clerk LMS)

Mar 18, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Mar 18, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 18, 2026

RECEIPT number 17793 for $5.00 for filing fee from Jose Armando Duron Martinez. (Deputy Clerk RRB)

#6

Mar 19, 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: 03/19/2026)

#7

Mar 20, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Mar 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/20/2026: (Text Only Entry); GRANTING 2 Motion for TRO. On 3/18/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 3/20/2026, respondents filed an opposition in which, while they argue that petitioner is lawfully detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), respondents nevertheless concede that this case does not present significant factual or legal differences from the circumstances addressed in the court's prior order in Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) Respondents do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2023. Petitioner was detained by immigration officials and subsequently released from custody with enrollment in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program. Petitioner contends that he has fully complied with the conditions of his release. Petitioner was subsequently arrested for driving without a license and possession of controlled substances on or about 12/27/2025. On 2/5/2026, he was scheduled to be released from custody stemming from his arrest and was to be placed into a rehabilitation program. However, petitioner was instead transferred into the custody of immigration officials. There is no indication that petitioner was provided notice or a hearing before he was placed back into immigration custody. Having considered the circumstances surrounding petitioner's detention and the parties' arguments, the court concludes that petitioner's detention violates due process. Furthermore, because petitioner was transferred into immigration custody and has been held without a bond hearing, the court finds that petitioner's immediate release is the appropriate remedy. Chingo v. Stamper, No. 2:25-cv-00590-JAW, 2025 WL 3513833, at *6 (D. Me. Dec. 8, 2025) (concluding that a petitioner who was previously released from immigration custody on her own recognizance, arrested for a misdemeanor and taken into local law enforcement custody, then transferred into ICE custody without a bond hearing was entitled to immediate release). Accordingly, the court CONVERTS petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTS it as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody under the same conditions he was subject to prior to his re-detention on or about 2/5/2026; (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden of establishing that petitioner is either 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 petition for writ of habeas corpus is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk CGH) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

Mar 20, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Mar 23, 2026

Service by Mail

#9

May 04, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

May 04, 2026

Service by Mail