Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03698

#1

May 13, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Blanche, Warden Golden State Annex Facility, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement by Sukhpreet Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13322196) (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service POS, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet CCS)(Mann, Kamal) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

#2

May 13, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Sukhpreet Singh. (Mann, Kamal) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

#3

May 13, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk RMG) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

#4

May 14, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/14/2026: 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, the court has conducted a preliminary review of the pending motion and petition for writ of habeas corpus and observes that this case may involve core issues that the undersigned has previously addressed in this context. Accordingly, the parties are advised that if the court concludes that petitioner is entitled to the relief that is requested in the pending motion, then the court will also rule on the merits of the underlying petition. 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."); Dzhabrailov v. Decker, No. 20-cv-03118-PMH, 2020 WL 2731966 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2020) (considering the merits of the habeas petition and motion for preliminary injunction simultaneously). 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 5:00 PM on Friday, 5/15/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Li v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-00980-DAD-EFB, 2026 WL 970529 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2026); Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025); Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025); Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, et al., No. 2:26-cv-00832-DAD-DMC, 2026 WL 765027 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2026); Quichimbo-Jimenez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-00739-DAD-EFB (HC), 2026 WL 679378 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026); Cardenas v. Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02073-DAD-SCR (HC), 2026 WL 785871 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026); J.P.C. v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-02108-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 788129 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. The court will construe failure to distinguish the above cited cases as a concession that the cases are not substantively distinguishable. If respondents oppose this court ruling on the underlying petition, then respondents are DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in their opposition. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#5

May 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: 05/14/2026)

May 14, 2026

Minute Order

#6

May 15, 2026

RESPONSE to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 213, # 2 Exhibit NTA, # 3 Exhibit Written Pleadings, # 4 Exhibit Removal Order, # 5 Exhibit Orders on Motions, # 6 Exhibit Appeal Brief, # 7 Exhibit BIA Schedule, # 8 Exhibit 213)(Davis, Sean) Modified on 5/21/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#7

May 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/18/2026: In light of the arguments advanced by respondents in their 6 opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order, petitioner is DIRECTED to file a reply to respondents' 6 opposition by Tuesday, 5/19/2026 at noon. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

May 18, 2026

Minute Order

#8

May 19, 2026

RESPONSE by Sukhpreet Singh to 6 Response. (Mann, Kamal) Modified on 5/22/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#9

May 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/22/2026: On 5/13/2026, petitioner, proceeding through counsel, filed a motion for temporary restraining order seeking: (1) an order prohibiting respondent from removing petitioner from the United States or transferring him outside of the Eastern District of California; (2) an order that respondents maintain petitioner's current custodial status pending further order of this court; (3) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue; and (4) any other relief that the court deems proper. (Doc. No. 2 at 7.) On 5/15/2026, respondents filed an opposition to that motion arguing that petitioner's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) because he was ordered removed in 10/2025 and failed to appeal that order within the time allotted to do so. (Doc. No. 6 at 2-4.) On 5/19/2026, petitioner filed a reply in support of the pending motion. (Doc. No. 8 .) While somewhat difficult to decipher, it appears that in the reply petitioner is arguing that because his appeal of the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen proceedings remains pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals, he is not subject to detention pursuant to § 1231(a)(6). (Id. at 1-7.) Petitioner further requests the court to order his immediate release or order respondents to provide him with a bond hearing before an immigration judge. (Id. at 7.) Petitioner entered the United States in 2019. Sometime thereafter, he was detained by immigration officials, placed into removal proceedings, released from immigration custody on bond, and enrolled in the Alternatives to Detention Program. On or about 5/3/2026, petitioner was re-detained by ICE officials after he reported in person at the Fresno, California Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") office for a mandatory check-in appointment. From the evidence filed with the parties' briefing, it appears that ICE re-detained petitioner without notice, explanation, or a pre-detention hearing on ICE's decision to re-detain him. The court concludes that it need not determine which detention authority governs here because, under both detention schemes, petitioner's re-detention violates due process. Assuming respondents are correct that petitioner is presently detained pursuant to § 1236(a)(6), the court concludes that petitioner's detention violates both the applicable regulations and due process because there is no indication that petitioner was provided notice of the reasons for his re-detention. See Gregorio Ordonez v. Bondi, No. 2:25-cv-02356-JHC-TLF, 2025 WL 3852444, at *3-9 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2025) (concluding that re-detaining a petitioner subject to a final order of removal under similar circumstances violated both the applicable regulations and due process), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:25-cv-02356-JHC-TLF, 2026 WL 30022 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2026). Further, because he was not provided notice or a pre-detention hearing and petitioner was previously released from immigration custody, petitioner's re-detention would also violate due process if his removal order were not yet final. See Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083, *2-5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). Accordingly, the court GRANTS the 2 motion for temporary restraining order as follows: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner Sukhpreet Singh, A-File No. 201-740-399, from respondents' custody; (2) respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a hearing before a neutral adjudicator. Under the circumstances of the case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The parties are directed to meet and confer, if possible, and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule on any motion for preliminary injunction within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE - Golden State) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

May 22, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO