Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02697

#1

Apr 10, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Batraz Totrov. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13165770) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Shidaev, Jacob) (Main Document 1 replaced on 4/10/2026) (MCF). (Attachment 1 replaced on 4/10/2026) (MCF). (Attachment 2 replaced on 4/10/2026) (MCF). (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#2

Apr 10, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Batraz Totrov. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, # 2 Appendix TRO Checklist, # 3 Proposed Order)(Shidaev, Jacob) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#3

Apr 10, 2026

AMENDED MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER amending 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, by Batraz Totrov. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, # 2 Appendix TRO Checklist, # 3 Proposed Order)(Shidaev, Jacob) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#4

Apr 10, 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: 04/10/2026)

#6

Apr 10, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 5/14/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#7

Apr 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/10/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and 3 Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. In the 3 Amended Motion, Petitioner states he was detained on 11/25/2025, over 120 days before filing that Amended Motion. Petitioner indicates that he did not file a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order earlier because he was recently transferred to the California City Detention Center, but does not indicate why he did not file such a motion in the district where he was previously detained. Notably, Local Rule 231(b) states: "In considering a motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court will consider whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary restraining order." Because Petitioner's 3 Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is untimely, the court will CONVERT that Motion to a 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Further, the court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the 1 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 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the 3 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 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 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 12:00 PM on 4/15/2026. 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 4/16/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One 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: 04/10/2026)

Apr 10, 2026

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

#8

Apr 15, 2026

OPPOSITION to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by All Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Ahmed, Ihsan) Modified on 4/27/2026 (KS). (Entered: 04/15/2026)

#9

Apr 15, 2026

REPLY to 8 Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Batraz Totrov. (Shidaev, Jacob) Modified on 4/27/2026 (KS). (Entered: 04/15/2026)

#10

Apr 16, 2026

Notice (Other)

#11

Apr 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/29/2026: In Respondents' 8 Opposition to Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Respondents continue to oppose issuance of a preliminary injunctive relief. However, Respondents do not identify any material distinction between this case and the court's previous decisions in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and other cases addressing the same issue presented here. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Labrador, Selis Tinoco, and D.L.C., Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner Batraz Totrov (A-246-905-326) shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from the Respondents' custody; (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 7 days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. This Order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal. Upon further review, the court will not rule directly on the Petition at this time. Therefore, this case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the California City Detention Facility (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE-California City) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

Apr 29, 2026

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