Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02142

#1

Mar 18, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pam Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by Sandro Manuel Espinoza Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Deputy Clerk AMW) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#2

Mar 18, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Sandro Manuel Espinoza Lopez. (Deputy Clerk AMW) (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 AMW) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#4

Mar 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by 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. Further, in light of petitioner's pro se status, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED: (1) 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; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. 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 5:00 PM on Friday, 3/20/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from P.A.H.E. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01164-DJC-JDP, 2026 WL 451662 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026). If respondents' position is that P.A.H.E. is distinguishable, then respondents shall further indicate whether this case presents any provision of law or fact that would render it substantively distinguishable from this court's decision in Ayala 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. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

Mar 18, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 18, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 4 Minute Order served on Sandro Manuel Espinoza Lopez. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Mar 18, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Sandro Manuel Espinoza Lopez. (Deputy Clerk AMW)

Mar 18, 2026

RECEIPT number 100007603 for $5.00 Habeas Filing Fee. (Deputy Clerk AMW)

Mar 18, 2026

Minute Order

#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

Certificate / Proof of Service

#9

Mar 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/20/2026: On 3/18/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, 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 order in which they substantively address whether this case is distinguishable from P.A.H.E. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01164-DJC-JDP, 2026 WL 451662 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026). (Doc. No. 4 .) The court further directed respondents to indicate whether this case is substantively distinguishable from the circumstances addressed in the court's prior order in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), in the event respondents' position is that the decision in P.A.H.E. is distinguishable. (Id.) On 3/20/2026, respondents filed an opposition to the pending motion in which they argue that petitioner is an "applicant for admission" subject to mandatory detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). (Doc. No. 7 at 1.) They contend that petitioner "does not possess a right to freedom from immigration detention in any form other than the form provided by Congress." (Id. at 2.) However, respondents have conceded that "there are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the cases identified in the Order." (Id. at 1.) Respondents have also indicated that they do not oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) Petitioner is a native and citizen of Ecuador. In 11/2023, he entered the United States at the age of 16 as an unaccompanied minor and subsequently resided with his father until he was recently detained by immigration officials. Petitioner contends that he was apprehended by immigration authorities while walking to work on 1/14/2026 and has remained detained since then. Because petitioner entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor and respondents have conceded that there are no significant legal or factual differences between this case and the cases cited in the court's order setting a briefing schedule in this case, the court infers that petitioner was encountered by immigration officials when he initially entered the United States and was released into the country by the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"). Other courts have concluded that an immigration detainee cannot be subsequently subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) when they were previously released into the United States by the ORR. See e.g., P.A.H.E.., 2026 WL 451662, at *2 ("Therefore, Petitioner is clearly subject to section 1232 and section 1225's mandatory detention provision does not apply."); R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2686866, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025) ("However, respondents' argument that the government could re-detain petitioner under § 1225(b), even though she was previously designated an unaccompanied minor child, is unpersuasive. The detention of unaccompanied minor children is governed by the TVPRA, which does not mandate detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(2)(A)-(B)."). The court finds this reasoning persuasive. Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in P.A.H.E. and R.D.T.M., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his re-detention on 1/9/2026; and (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 a neutral adjudicator where respondents will have the burden of establishing that petitioner is a danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. 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 writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

Mar 20, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Mar 20, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 9 Minute Order served on Sandro Manuel Espinoza Lopez. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Mar 20, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 24, 2026

Minute Order

Mar 24, 2026

Service by Mail