Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02809

#1

Apr 13, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Apr 13, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Apr 13, 2026

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

Apr 14, 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: 04/14/2026)

#5

Apr 14, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/14/2026: 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 One 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 4/17/2026. 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 4/20/2026. 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: 04/14/2026)

Apr 14, 2026

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

#6

Apr 17, 2026

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#7

Apr 20, 2026

TRAVERSE and REPLY to 6 Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Karen Lucia Aroca Castro. (Salgado, Mario) Modified on 4/22/2026 (KS). (Entered: 04/20/2026)

#8

Apr 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/29/2026: In Respondents' 6 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents continue to oppose issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. 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 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner Karen Lucia Aroca Castro (A-240-800-978) shall be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY from the Respondents' custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on her, 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. Moreover, in light of Respondents' non-opposition to treating Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see Doc. No. 6 at 2), and given that the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction, Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms. 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

#9

May 01, 2026

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