Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04568

#1

Jun 14, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#2

Jun 14, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#3

Jun 15, 2026

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)

#5

Jun 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 6/15/2026: The Court has reviewed the 2 petition for writ of habeas corpus and 1 motion for temporary restraining order. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the 2 petition. See e.g., Crispin M.C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025). The Court intends to rule directly on the 2 petition for writ of habeas corpus, with the understanding that the Court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the 1 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."); Dzhabrailov v. Decker, No. 20-CV-3118 (PMH), 2020 WL 2731966, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2020) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). On or before June 17, 2026, respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court's prior orders in Crispin M.C. v. Noem, J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, and Lepe v. Andrews and justify denying the petition, or indicate the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Pending the Court's decision, and unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the Court ORDERS that respondents shall not transfer petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting court's "express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction"). (Entered: 06/15/2026)

Jun 15, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Jun 16, 2026

Notice (Other)

#7

Jun 18, 2026

Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#8

Jun 18, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#9

Jun 22, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#10

Jun 22, 2026

Judgment

#11

Jun 23, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#12

Jun 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 6/28/2026: On June 18, 2026, the Court granted the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus "to the extent it seeks a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)." Doc. 8 at 1. Petitioner now seeks clarification as to whether he or the government bears the burden of proving that he is not a flight risk or danger to the community at that bond hearing. Doc. 11. At a § 1226(a) bond hearing, the burden is on the detainee to "demonstrate[] by the preponderance of the evidence that he is not 'a threat to national security, a danger to the community at large, likely to abscond, or otherwise a poor bail risk.'" Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006)). The Ninth Circuit rejected an as-applied due process challenge to § 1226(a)'s procedures in Rodriguez Diaz, and the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and motion for clarification do not attempt to distinguish this case from Rodriguez Diaz. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the 11 motion for clarification. (Entered: 06/28/2026)

Jun 28, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO