Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04567

(HC) Singh v. Chestnut

Active

Case Information

Filed: June 14, 2026
Assigned to: Dale Alan Drozd
Referred to: Sean C. Riordan
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee
Active
Last Activity: July 01, 2026
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#1
Jun 14, 2026
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Main Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Jun 14, 2026
Temporary Restraining Order
Main Document: Temporary Restraining Order
#3
Jun 15, 2026
Immigration New Case Documents
Main Document: Immigration New Case Documents
#4
Jun 15, 2026
DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin (Weger, Shelley) (Entered: 06/15/2026)
Main Document: DESIGNATION
#5
Jun 16, 2026
Notice (Other)
Main Document: Notice (Other)
#6
Jun 23, 2026
MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/23/2026: Petitioner, proceeding through counsel, filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner also filed a 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending petition for writ of habeas corpus, 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 motion for a temporary restraining order. Further, the court has conducted a preliminary review of the 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 have already entered a notice of appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for a temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 6/25/2026. 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 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, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); 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. Further, if the respondents oppose this court ruling on the underlying habeas corpus petition as well, then respondent is DIRECTED to indicate so and provide substantive reasons in support thereof in their opposition. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRN) (Entered: 06/23/2026)
Jun 23, 2026
Minute Order
#7
Jun 25, 2026
OPPOSITION by Sergio Albarran, Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Form I-213), # 2 Exhibit 2 (notice to appear), # 3 Exhibit 3 (rap sheet))(Weger, Shelley) (Entered: 06/25/2026)
Main Document: Opposition to Motion
#8
Jul 01, 2026
Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case
Main Document: Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case
#9
Jul 01, 2026
Judgment
Main Document: Judgment

Parties

Chestnut
Party
(HC) Singh
Party