Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03147

#1

Apr 24, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Arpit Dahiya. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13233722) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Virdi, Nareshwar) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#2

Apr 24, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Arpit Dahiya. (Virdi, Nareshwar) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#3

Apr 24, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#4

Apr 24, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 5/29/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk CLA) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#5

Apr 24, 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: 04/24/2026)

#6

Apr 26, 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: 04/26/2026)

#7

Apr 27, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Ihsan U. Ahmed for Todd Blanche,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Orestes Cruz,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Department of Homeland Security (DHS),Ihsan U. Ahmed for Golden State Annex Detention Center,Ihsan U. Ahmed for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operation,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Todd Lyons,Ihsan U. Ahmed for Markwayne Mullin, attorney Audrey Benison Hemesath, GOVT terminated (Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#8

Apr 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/27/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count Three 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 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 4/30/2026. 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 5/1/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count Three 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: 04/27/2026)

#9

Apr 27, 2026

RESPONSE by Todd Blanche, Orestes Cruz, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Golden State Annex Detention Center, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operation, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin to 8 Minute Order,,,,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,, 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 Ex.1 Form I-213, # 2 Ex. 2 IJ order, # 3 Ex. 3 BIA decision, # 4 Ex. 4 BIA rejection notice)(Ahmed, Ihsan) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

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

#10

Apr 28, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#11

May 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/12/2026: In Respondents' 9 Opposition to Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents distinguish Petitioner's case from those cited in the court's 8 Order by emphasizing that on 10/31/2024, Petitioner was ordered removed to his native India. Respondents attach a copy of that [9-2] Final Order of Removal. Petitioner appealed that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), and on 10/22/2025, the BIA denied Petitioner's appeal. Thus, on 10/22/2025, Petitioner became subject to a final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), and his detention authority as of that date shifted to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), which pertains to the "[d]etention, release, and removal of aliens ordered removed." Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A), detention is mandatory for a 90-day "removal period" following finalization of the notice of removal. Because Petitioner was not detained during this 90-day period, detention authority now shifts to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), which permits discretionary detention of certain noncitizens, including those who, like Petitioner, are deemed removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182. In his 10 Reply, Petitioner argues that, even if Petitioner's detention authority has now shifted to § 1231(a), due process requires that he be provided an individualized bond hearing to determine whether his re-detention was necessary. Petitioner cites no authority supporting the proposition that a non-citizen previously released into the United States must be provided an individualized bond hearing before they may be detained to execute a final order of removal, and the court is aware of no such authority. Petitioner further contends that his detention is unlawful because he has a pending motion to reopen immigration proceedings and an emergency motion to stay removal pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, under both Supreme Court precedent and DHS regulations, the filing of motions relating to a final order of removal does not affect the government's authority to detain that noncitizen. See Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 540 (2021) ("Because the validity of removal orders is not affected by the grant of withholding-only relief, an alien's initiation of withholding-only proceedings does not render non-final an otherwise 'administratively final' reinstated order of removal."); 8 C.F.R. 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(b)(1) ("An alien who filed a motion to reopen immigration proceedings for consideration of relief from removal, including withholding or deferral of removal... shall remain subject to the provisions of this section unless the motion to reopen is granted."). Thus, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his re-detention violated his statutory or constitutional rights, and Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (cc: Golden State) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

May 12, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#12

May 26, 2026

06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response