Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04107

#1

May 29, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Nancy Gonzalez, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin by Md Arafat. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13386428) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#2

May 29, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk ED) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#3

May 29, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Executive Office of Immigration Review,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Nancy Gonzalez,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#4

May 29, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Md Arafat. (Attachments: # 1 TRO Checklist)(Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#5

May 29, 2026

DECLARATION of Laboni Hoq in support of 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#6

May 29, 2026

DECLARATION of Petitioner Md Arafat in support of 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#7

May 29, 2026

PROPOSED ORDER re Motion for Temporary Restraining Order re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. (Hoq, Laboni) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#8

May 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/29/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. This court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See M.M. v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-00813-DC-AC, 2026 WL 604200 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2026); Nasar v. Warden, No. 2:26-cv-00433-DC-AC, 2026 WL 731160 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 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 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 6/2/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 6/3/2026. 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: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

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

#11

Jun 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/18/2026: In Respondents' 9 Opposition to Petitioner's 4 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is not entitled to release from his prolonged immigration detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), for two reasons. First, Respondents argue that the Zadvydas period has not expired because Petitioner has been detained for over six months from finalization of his order of removal, not six months from the end of the 90-day removal period. Respondents urge the court to disregard the Ninth Circuit's description clarification in Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1102 n.5 (9th Cir. 2001), that the Zadvydas period applies to a "period of six months after a final order of removal--that is, three months after the statutory removal period has ended" because the statement occurred in a footnote, and therefore must be dicta. Respondents provide no authority supporting the proposition that unambiguous statements made in a footnote are inherently dicta, nor any authority supporting their interpretation that the Zadvydas period begins after expiration of the removal period. Second, Respondents contend that Petitioner has not met his initial burden of showing "good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future" as required by Zadvydas because he has not provided evidence that Respondents have not taken affirmative steps to remove him to a third country. However, in Petitioner's 4 Motion, Petitioner emphasizes that he has been granted withholding of removal to his native Bangladesh, and that Respondents have not identified a third country to which he will be removed. By Respondents' interpretation, a noncitizen with withholding of removal to his native country would be required to provide affirmative evidence that he will not be removed to any unidentified third country to obtain relief under Zadvydas. The court rejects this interpretation. Accordingly, Petitioner had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his prolonged detention following finalization of his order of removal violates his right to due process as detailed in Zadvydas and his 4 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is therefore GRANTED as follows: Respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner MD Arafat (A-221-390-775) from their custody pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(j)(1); (2) Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, strict compliance with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve this order on the California City Detention Center. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE-California City) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

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