Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01793

#1

Dec 09, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Minga Wofford by Amit Sharma. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12656893) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Abrams, Joseph) (Entered: 12/09/2025)

#2

Dec 09, 2025

MOTION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Amit Sharma. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Abrams, Joseph) (Entered: 12/09/2025)

#3

Dec 10, 2025

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

Dec 11, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/11/2025: On 12/9/2025, petitioner filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus and a 2 motion for expedited consideration of the 1 petition. If petitioner seeks emergency relief, petitioner is DIRECTED to file a motion for temporary restraining order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 12/11/2025)

#5

Dec 11, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/11/2025: The 1 petition is far from a model of clarity, but it appears that in the petition, petitioner is asserting that his constitutional right to due process as well as his rights under the INA have been violated as a result of him being taken into custody on October 7, 2025, when he appeared as directed. As to his 2 motion for expeditious consideration of his habeas petition, this court is inundated with petitions for habeas relief and expedited review of those petitions is not practical. If what petitioner is seeking is the granting of a motion for temporary restraining order, he is directed, as the court has done in its prior 4 order, to file such a motion supported by legal authority relevant to the standards for a temporary restraining order. In addition, the court would note that neither the petition nor the motion appear to discuss whether he was released by immigration authorities following his initial arrest upon entry into the United States on August 30, 2023. In addition, he does not appear to provide any information about what the conditions of that release were and whether between his release and his possible re-arrest on October 7, 2025, he remained in compliance with the conditions of that release. If he elects to file a motion for temporary restraining order, his counsel is DIRECTED to include that information. If the court receives a motion for temporary restraining order, the court will issue a briefing schedule on the motion. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 12/11/2025)

Dec 11, 2025

Minute Order

#6

Dec 19, 2025

Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#7

Dec 21, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#8

Dec 22, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/22/2025: Pending the issuance of the courts order resolving the pending 7 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 courts 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 7 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than today, 12/22/2025, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondent with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for respondent shall promptly enter a Notice of Appearance. Respondent shall file a written opposition to the pending 7 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, 12/23/2025. In that opposition, respondent shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this courts decision in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#9

Dec 22, 2025

Certificate / Proof of Service

#10

Dec 22, 2025

Opposition to Motion

#11

Dec 22, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/22/2025: On 12/21/2025, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ). On 12/22/2025, respondent filed her opposition to the motion (Doc. No. 10 ). In respondents opposition (Doc. No. 10 ) to petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ), respondent concedes that there are no factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinct from the courts prior order in [Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025)]. (Doc. No. 10 at 2.) Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning as stated in Perez, petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ) is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) respondent is ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his October 7, 2025 detention; and (2) respondent is ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondent will have the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying petitioners re-detention. Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

Dec 22, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Dec 22, 2025

Minute Order

#12

Jan 07, 2026

JOINT STATUS REPORT by Parties. (Abrams, Joseph) Modified on 1/9/2026 (KS). (Entered: 01/07/2026)

#13

Jan 09, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/9/2026: On 12/22/2025, the court issued an order granting petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ), in which the court: (1) ordered respondents to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody under the same conditions that governed his release prior to his re-detention; and (2) enjoined and restrained respondents from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents would bear the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances to justify petitioners re-detention. (Doc. No. 11 ). In the same order, the court directed the parties to submit a joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a preliminary injunction. (Id.) On 1/7/2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting that petitioners motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ) be renewed and converted to a motion for preliminary injunction, and that respondents opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 10 ) be construed as opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. The parties agree that the motion for preliminary injunction maybe decided on the papers without a hearing. (Doc. No. 12 .) Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning as stated in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), petitioners motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 7 ) is hereby CONVERTED into a motion for a preliminary injunction, that motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby GRANTED, and the court orders the following: (1) if for any reason they have not already done so, respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody under the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his detention on October 7, 2025; and (2) respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will bear the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances justifying petitioners re-detention. Petitioner will not be required to post bond pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 2 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

Jan 09, 2026

Minute Order

#14

Jan 15, 2026

Notice (Other)