Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06764

#1

Aug 24, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security by Aron Michael Swing. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13773917) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Declaration)(Damast, Sabrina) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#2

Aug 24, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Aron Michael Swing. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Declaration)(Damast, Sabrina) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#3

Aug 24, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk LJB) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#4

Aug 24, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#5

Aug 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/27/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, 2026 WL 2196424, at *3 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). This court has previously held that noncitizens are entitled to a post-deprivation bond hearing when they are detained by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a), 1227(a) for remaining in the U.S. after the expiration of their previously-granted immigration status (see, e.g., Dandamudi v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-03567-DC-CSK, Doc. No. 8 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2026) (finding prudential exhaustion purposes satisfied by relief sought, granting temporary restraining order, and ordering a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) where the petitioner had overstayed their H-1B status); Gutierrez Nunez v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Det. Fac., No. 1:26-cv-03932-DC-CKD, No. 8 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2026) (same for the noncitizen who had overstayed a B-2 visa), and that noncitizens are entitled to immediate release when the Government asserts no valid basis for immigration detention (see, e.g., Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (finding immediate release to be the proper remedy where the government asserted detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) when only 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) provided a basis for detention); Singh v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-06390-DC-CSK, Doc. No. 9 (Aug. 21, 2026) (finding immediate release to be the proper remedy where the government asserted detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based upon vacated crimes)). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 8/28/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address: (1) Petitioner's claims as to the impact of the Deferred Enforced Departure for Hong Kong residents, and (2) whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Rodriguez Vazquez and this court's prior cases cited above. Petitioner shall file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 8/31/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition. 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: 08/27/2026)

#6

Aug 27, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and RESPONSE (Opposition) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 8/28/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 08/27/2026)

Aug 27, 2026

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

#7

Aug 28, 2026

REPLY in support of 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; TRAVERSE by Aron Michael Swing . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits G-I))(Damast, Sabrina) Modified on 8/28/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#8

Aug 28, 2026

OBJECTIONS by Respondents to Reply to Opposition, ECF No. 7 - 1. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 8/28/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#9

Aug 28, 2026

RESPONSE by Aron Michael Swing to 8 Objections. (Damast, Sabrina) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#10

Sep 27, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Aron Michael Swing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Damast, Sabrina) (Entered: 09/27/2026)

#11

Sep 27, 2026

NOTICE of MOOTNESS by Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 10/6/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 09/27/2026)

#12

Sep 27, 2026

RESPONSE to 11 Notice by Aron Michael Swing. (Damast, Sabrina) Modified on 10/6/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 09/27/2026)

#13

Oct 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 10/5/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 10 Status Report, Respondents' 11 Notice of Mootness, and 12 Petitioner's Response. In Oliveira Tinoco v. Albarran, 2026 WL 2949219, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2026), this court recently held that a petitioner challenging their immigration detention must be returned to the status quo ante litem following a violation of their constitutional right to due process. By 12:00 PM on 10/7/2026, Respondents shall file a supplemental brief to substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Oliveira Tinoco. Petitioner shall file a reply thereto by 12:00 PM on 10/8/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 10/05/2026)

Oct 05, 2026

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

#14

Oct 07, 2026

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF filed by Sergio Albarran, Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#15

Oct 08, 2026

REPLY by Aron Michael Swing re 14 Brief. (Damast, Sabrina) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

#16

Oct 08, 2026

(DISREGARD AS PROVIDED BY THE CLERK'S NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION AT DOC. 17) MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 10/8/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 10 Status Report, Respondents' 11 Notice of Mootness, and 12 Petitioner's Response. In Oliveira Tinoco v. Albarran, 2026 WL 2949219, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2026), this court recently held that a petitioner challenging their immigration detention must be returned to the status quo ante litem following a violation of their constitutional right to due process. By 12:00 PM on 10/7/2026, Respondents shall file a supplemental brief to substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Oliveira Tinoco. Petitioner shall file a reply thereto by 12:00 PM on 10/8/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Docket Text Modified on 10/8/2026 by CRS: Disregard Language Added.) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

#17

Oct 08, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE of DOCKET CORRECTION: The 10/8/2026 Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 16, was issued in error and is duplicative of the 10/5/2026 Minute Order, filed at Doc. No. 13. Accordingly, the filing at Doc. No. 16 shall be DISREGARDED. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

Oct 08, 2026

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