Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02384

(HC) Stamenkovic v. Chestnut

Active

Case Information

Filed: March 27, 2026
Assigned to: Dale Alan Drozd
Referred to: Edmund F. Brennan
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee
Active
Last Activity: April 01, 2026
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#1
Mar 27, 2026
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Kristi Noem by Sandra Stamenkovic. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13101707) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 03/27/2026)
Main Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Mar 27, 2026
MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Sandra Stamenkovic. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Trochecklist, # 6 TRO Proposed Order, # 7 PI Proposed Order)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 03/27/2026)
Main Document: Temporary Restraining Order
#3
Mar 27, 2026
PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 4/30/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 03/27/2026)
Main Document: Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider
#4
Mar 30, 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: 03/30/2026)
Main Document: CONSENT/DECLINE
#5
Mar 30, 2026
MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/30/2026: (Text Only Entry).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, no later than today, 3/30/2026, by 12:00 PM, petitioner's counsel 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 12:00 PM on Tuesday, 3/31/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decision in Franco v. Meyer, No. 1:25-cv-01620-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3280782 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 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 CGH) (Entered: 03/30/2026)
#6
Mar 30, 2026
Certificate / Proof of Service
Main Document: Certificate / Proof of Service
Mar 30, 2026
Minute Order
#7
Mar 31, 2026
Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Main Document: Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#8
Mar 31, 2026
Dismiss
Main Document: Dismiss
#9
Mar 31, 2026
DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Lauren Black, GOVT for Moises Becerra,Lauren Black, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Lauren Black, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Lauren Black, GOVT for Kristi Noem, attorney Tracey McDonald, GOVT terminated (Black, Lauren) (Entered: 03/31/2026)
Main Document: DESIGNATION
#10
Apr 01, 2026
MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/2026: On 3/27/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 .) On 3/30/2026, the court issued a briefing schedule as to that pending motion and directed respondents to address whether the court's prior order in Franco v. Meyer, 1:25-cv-01620-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3280782 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025) is substantively distinguishable from this matter. On 3/31/2026, respondents filed an opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to the pending motion. In that opposition, respondents do not address Franco as directed but instead argue that petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), received a bond hearing a month and a half after her initial detention, and that petitioner's habeas petition is contesting the immigration judge's decision at that bond hearing through this habeas petition. (Doc. No. 7 at 4-6.) Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the previous orders in Franco, 2025 WL 3280782, where the undersigned found that the arrest of the petitioner during his adjustment of status interview violated the INA. Here, petitioner entered the United States on 9/24/2023 on a B-2 visitor visa and subsequently married her husband who is a citizen of the United States. (Doc. No. 1 at 14.) On 9/29/2025, petitioner filed for adjustment of status. (Id. on 15.) Petitioner has filed her own declaration in which she states that she attended an adjustment of status interview on 12/5/2025 and was detained at that interview. (Doc. No. [2-4] at 3, 4.) On 1/27/2026, petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) where the immigration judge found that petitioner was a flight risk because she had lived in Illinois at some point in the past. (Doc. No. 1 at 32; Doc. No. 2-3 at 29.) Respondents argue that petitioner must exhaust her claims through an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") prior to this court providing habeas relief. (Doc. No. 7 at 4-6.) However, "[a]ny appeal Petitioner would make to the [BIA] would only be a review of the determination by the IJ at the bond hearing. It would not address the propriety of Petitioner's redetention, which concerns the constitutionality of an agency action prior to the bond hearing." Venega-Maltez v. Semaia, No. 5:26-cv-00525-JAK-AGR, 2026 WL 846035, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2026) (waiving the prudential exhaustion requirement on the basis that the petitioner's potential BIA appeal would be futile). Here, as in Venega-Maltez, the pending habeas petition seeks relief based upon immigration authorities' unlawful conduct prior to the bond hearing and the court therefore finds that the exhaustion requirement is appropriately waived because an appeal to the BIA would be futile under these circumstances. Respondents state in their opposition that they do not oppose converting the pending motion into a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7 at 1-2.) Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning set forth in Franco, petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED. The court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents' custody on the same conditions, if any, that governed her release immediately prior to her detention on 12/5/2025; 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 bear the burden to demonstrate that petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community 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 Clerk is directed to serve the California City Detention Center with a copy of this Order. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (cc: ICE-California City) (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 04/01/2026)
Apr 01, 2026
Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO