Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02177

#1

Mar 19, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford by Jagjit Singh Brar. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13061713) (Attachments: # 1 JS44, # 2 EVIDENCE)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#2

Mar 19, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jagjit Singh Brar. (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Dec, # 2 TRO checklist, # 3 Evidence)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#3

Mar 19, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorney Simranjit Kaur re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Under Local Rule 200, every complaint, amended complaint, or other document initiating a civil action shall be accompanied by a completed civil cover sheet, on a form available from the Clerk and on the Court's website. Please file your civil cover sheet. If you need assistance, please contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-884-5444. (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#4

Mar 19, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 4/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#5

Mar 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/19/2026: 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 3/23/2026. 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 3/24/2026. 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. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 5:00 PM on 3/19/2026. 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: 03/19/2026)

Mar 19, 2026

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

#6

Mar 20, 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: 03/20/2026)

#7

Mar 21, 2026

Request

#8

Mar 23, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, and Minga Wofford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Ahmed, Ihsan) (Modified on 3/23/2026 by CRS.) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#9

Mar 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 3/23/2026: Having considered Petitioner's 7 Request to file an Amended Petition and Notice informing the court that Petitioner's original Petition contained "inadvertent factual inaccuracies," the court hereby GRANTS the 7 request and DIRECTS Petitioner to promptly file his Amended Petition. Further, in light of this Order, the pending 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner filing a renewed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order based on the forthcoming Amended Petition. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 03/23/2026)

Mar 23, 2026

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

#10

Apr 03, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#11

Apr 03, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#12

Apr 03, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/3/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 10 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 11 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 10 Amended 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 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 4/7/2026. 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 4/8/2026. 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 RAA) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

Apr 03, 2026

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

#13

Apr 06, 2026

OPPOSITION to 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1: Form I-213, # 2 Ex.2: Notice to Appear, # 3 Ex. 3: Order of the Immigration Judge, # 4 Ex, 4 Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, # 5 Ex. 5: Ninth Ct Denial of PFR, # 6 Ex.6 Mandate, # 7 Ex. 7 Warrant)(Ahmed, Ihsan) Modified on 4/7/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#14

Apr 23, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/23/2026: In Respondents' 13 Opposition to Petitioner's 11 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Petitioner's removal pursuant to his Final Order of Removal (See Doc. No. 13 at 7-9), and that, because Petitioner does not argue that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable, his release is not mandated pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (id. at 4-5). Indeed, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) prohibits the court from enjoining the Government's discretionary determination to execute a final order of removal. See Rauda v. Jennings, 55 F.4th 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2022). Further Petitioner does not argue that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable in his 10 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or his 11 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner did not file a Reply responding to Respondents' arguments, and his time to do so has expired. (See Doc. No. 12.) Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his continued detention pending removal violates his Constitutional right to Due Process or his statutory rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Thus, Petitioner's 11 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 04/23/2026)

Apr 23, 2026

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

#15

May 01, 2026

06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response

#16

May 03, 2026

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#19

May 15, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#20

May 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/15/2026: On 5/15/2026, Petitioner filed a 19 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order alleging that Petitioner is being transported to Chicago, Illinois in anticipation of his imminent removal to his native India, and he seeks to enjoin his removal during the pendency of this litigation. Petitioner contends his present detention is unlawful because there are no changed circumstances warranting his detention as required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(1)-(2). However, under 8 C.F.R. 241.13(i)(2), a noncitizen with a final order of removal may be detained to effectuate that order where "on account of changed circumstances, the [government] determines that there is a significant likelihood that the [noncitizen] may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future." While Petitioner contends that Respondents "made no determination that there was a significant likelihood that he would be removed within the reasonably foreseeable future on account of changed circumstances," Petitioner's alleged imminent removal less than 90 days after the challenged detention demonstrates that there was such a significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future. Petitioner further acknowledges that his Motion to Reopen was denied on May 6, 2026, but emphasizes that "his appeal to [the] [N]inth [C]ircuit is going to be filed today within the 30 days allotted by [the] Board of [Immigration] Appeals." However, in both cases Petitioner cites to support his request to stay his removal, G.A.A. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01102-EPG-HC, 2025 WL 3251316 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025) and Nguyen v. Scott, 796 F. Supp. 3d 703 (W.D. Wash. 2025), the court stayed the petitioner's imminent removal to a third country for which the petitioner had not been provided an opportunity to assert a fear-based claim. Here, an immigration judge previously determined Petitioner did not assert a credible fear and ordered his removal to his native India, and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Petitioner's appeal of that order. Petitioner's 10 Amended Petition challenges his continued immigration detention as not serving any legitimate government goal, but the central consideration for whether a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal is constitutionally detained is "whether the detention in question exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal," and that consideration is measured "primarily in terms of the statute's basic purpose, namely, assuring the alien's presence at the moment of removal." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001). Here, the fact that Petitioner's removal is imminent and is to be executed within the removal period established by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1) demonstrates that his detention is indeed intended to assure his presence at the moment of removal. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, and his 19 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This case is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

May 15, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

May 19, 2026

Minute Order

May 29, 2026

Minute Order

Jun 02, 2026

Minute Order

#27

Jun 08, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus