Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06401

#1

Aug 11, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Navneet Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13714128) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration and Exhibits) (Adhikari, Laxman) Modified on 8/18/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#2

Aug 11, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk LJB) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#3

Aug 11, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Elisa M. Rodriguez added for All Respondents. (Rodriguez, Elisa) Modified on 8/18/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#4

Aug 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/13/2026: This matter is REFERRED to the assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge for further proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Pending the Court's ruling on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Respondents shall NOT TRANSFER Petitioner out of this District. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 608 (1966) (noting the Court's "express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction."). (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Deputy Clerk MDK) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

Aug 13, 2026

Minute Order

#5

Aug 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/18/2026. Petitioner, Navneet Singh (A# 246-266-448), through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which was referred to the undersigned. ECF Nos. 1, 2. The petition asserts petitioner's re-detention violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit recently issued binding precedent concerning petitioner's statutory claim, holding that "[noncitizens] present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A)." Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No 25-6842, ___ F.4th ____, 2026 WL 2196424, at *3, 7 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). This court has also previously addressed the legal issues presented by petitioner's procedural due process claim. Respondents are therefore directed to file a response within 7 days from the date of this order, which shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues that materially distinguish this case from Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock or the court's prior orders in Lida G.B. v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-2061 TLN CKD, 2026 WL 19104 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3. 2026), Z.Z. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-2309 TLN JDP, 2026 WL 890476 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2026), Mohammad S. v. Andrews, No. 1:26-cv-0590 TLN CSK, 2026 WL 480095 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 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. The response shall include petitioner's Form I-213 for each immigration encounter, any orders of release or detention, any custody warrants, notices, or decisions, and if respondents dispute any factual representations in the operative petition, any and all documents necessary to support their view of the facts. Petitioner's reply, if any, is due within 7 days of being served a copy of the respondents' response. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 08/18/2026)

Aug 18, 2026

Minute Order

#6

Aug 25, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS by Tonya Andrews, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David J. Venturella. (Rodriguez, Elisa) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#7

Aug 28, 2026

REPLY by Navneet Singh re 6 Motion to Dismiss. (Adhikari, Laxman) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#8

Sep 29, 2026

Notice (Other)