Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01650

#1

Nov 26, 2025

COMPLAINT against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford by Agusto Ramos Mendoza. Attorney Yasrebi, Arash added. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Yasrebi, Arash) (Entered: 11/26/2025)

#2

Nov 26, 2025

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Agusto Ramos Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit)(Yasrebi, Arash) (Entered: 11/26/2025)

#3

Nov 26, 2025

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 12/29/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 11/26/2025)

#4

Nov 26, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 11/26/2025: The Court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on or before 12/1/2025. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before 12/3/2025. 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: 11/26/2025)

Nov 26, 2025

RECEIPT number ACAEDC-12627531 for $405.00 for fbo Agusto Ramos Mendoza from Arash Yasrebi. (Deputy Clerk EF) [Filing fee for $405, receipt number ACAEDC-12627531, REFUNDED 12/5/2025] Modified on 12/8/2025 (Perdue, C.).

Nov 26, 2025

RECEIPT number ACAEDC-12627531 for $405.00 for fbo Agusto Ramos Mendoza from Arash Yasrebi. (Deputy Clerk EF)

Nov 26, 2025

PAYMENT for habeas petition filing fee in the amount of $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12627718. (Yasrebi, Arash)

Nov 26, 2025

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

#5

Dec 01, 2025

Opposition to Motion

#6

Dec 03, 2025

Reply to Response to Motion

#7

Dec 04, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/4/2025: 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) ("The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."); A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (issuing order temporarily enjoining applicants' imminent removal pursuant to Section 1651 because the Court "had the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [the Court's] jurisdiction over the matter."). 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. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/04/2025)

Dec 04, 2025

Minute Order

#8

Dec 08, 2025

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/8/2025 GRANTING IN PART the 2 Motion for TRO as follows: (a) the court temporarily enjoins respondents from removing Petitioner to Mexico without allowing him an opportunity to be heard by an immigration judge with due process; (b) Respondents are temporarily enjoined from removing or deporting Petitioner to a third country, including Mexico. The Respondents are further DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE no later than 12/11/2025 as to why this court should not issue a preliminary injunction on the same terms as this Order. Petitioner's response due 12/17/2025; reply to Petitioner's response due 12/19/2025. (Deputy Clerk VLK) (Entered: 12/08/2025)

#9

Dec 11, 2025

RESPONSE to 8 Order to Show Cause by Respondents. Attorney Lee, Justin added. (Lee, Justin) Modified on 12/12/2025 (KS). (Entered: 12/11/2025)

#10

Dec 11, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued on 12/11/2025 by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: On 12/8/2025, the court issued an 8 Order granting in part Petitioner's 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and ordering Respondents to show cause why the court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the Temporary Restraining Order. On 12/11/2025, Respondents filed a 9 Response indicating that they "have no opposition to the Court issuing a preliminary injunction on the same terms as the temporary restraining order." Because Respondents do not object, and because the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction, Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the 8 Temporary Restraining Order. This case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/11/2025)

Dec 11, 2025

Minute Order

#11

Jun 05, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#12

Jun 11, 2026

Preliminary Injunction

#13

Jun 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/12/2026: In Petitioner's 12 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Petitioner contends that he has been detained for over six months, and that during that period he has not "been afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a fear of removal to a third country before an asylum officer or Immigration Judge" despite Respondents indicating that he will be removed to third country Mexico in the imminent future. In Respondents' 5 Opposition to Petitioner's previous 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents indicated that Petitioner was "temporarily detained (for immediate removal to a third country (e.g., Mexico)), mandatorily as a matter of law, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and (6)." Courts within this district have found that where a noncitizen is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) due to his alleged removal to a third country and the government does not demonstrate affirmative progress toward removal to that country, the noncitizen's release from immigration custody is required under Supreme Court precedent in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). See, e.g., Vishal v. Chestnut, 811 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1187-88 (E.D. Cal. 2025). Accordingly, Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Petitioner's 12 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by 12:00 PM on 6/16/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Vishal. Petitioner may file a Reply by 6/17/2026. 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: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

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

#14

Jun 16, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#16

Jun 22, 2026

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Agusto Ramos Mendoza: Amended 15 Reply. (Yasrebi, Arash) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#17

Jun 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/22/2026: In Petitioner's 12 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Petitioner contends that he has been detained for more than 180 days, an Immigration Judge granted him withholding of removal to his native Guatemala, and the Government has not taken any affirmative steps to remove him to a third country such that his immediate release is now mandated pursuant to the Supreme Court's order in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In Respondents' 9 Opposition, Respondents argue release is inappropriate because this court issued a 8 Temporary Restraining Order, which it converted to a 10 Preliminary Injunction, under which Respondents are enjoined "from removing Petitioner to Mexico without first allowing him a meaningful opportunity to be heard on his fear-based claim before an immigration judge in compliance with due process," and "temporarily enjoined from removing or deporting Petitioner to a third country, including Mexico, absent further order from this court." Thus, Respondents argue that the court prevented Respondents from demonstrating affirmative progress toward removal to a third country and that Petitioner caused the delay in removal proceedings of which he now complains. Contrary to Respondents' characterization, the court's 8 Temporary Restraining Order and 10 Preliminary Injunction did not prevent Respondents from taking affirmative steps toward removing Petitioner. Indeed, those Orders explicitly instructed Respondents to provide Petitioner with a meaningful opportunity to be heard on his fear-based claim for removal before removing him. As Petitioner notes in his 15 Reply, Petitioner was scheduled for a 6/30/2026 immigration hearing where Respondents presumably could have provided Petitioner that opportunity, but Respondents cancelled that hearing without explanation and without rescheduling to another date. Respondents do not address why Petitioner was not promptly provided an immigration hearing in compliance with the court's 10 Order, nor why the hearing that has since been cancelled was not scheduled to occur until over six months after his detention began. Thus, Respondents fail to show that Petitioner's removal is reasonably foreseeable, and their stated intent to remove him to Mexico is insufficient. See, e.g., Castillo v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01296-SAB, 2026 WL 121652, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (stating that a declaration of deportation office indicating intent to remove the petitioner to Mexico and that Mexico would accept the petitioner was insufficient to demonstrate removal was reasonably foreseeable). Accordingly, Petitioner's 12 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED as follows: Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner Agusto Ramos Mendoza (A-201-012-259) on the same conditions of supervision as he was subject to prior to his detention in November 2025; (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); and (3) Respondents are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner to a third country without first allowing him a meaningful opportunity to be heard on his fear-based claim before an Immigration Judge in compliance with due process. The court's previous 8 Temporary Restraining Order and 10 Preliminary Injunction are hereby DISSOLVED as having been rendered moot by this Order. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve this Order on the Mesa Verde Detention Center. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE-Mesa Verde) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

Jun 22, 2026

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