Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01844

#1

Dec 12, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Minga Wofford by R.A.M.A.. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12668979) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gutierrez, Bonita) (Entered: 12/12/2025)

#2

Dec 12, 2025

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by R.A.M.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gutierrez, Bonita) (Entered: 12/12/2025)

#3

Dec 15, 2025

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 1/20/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk OFR) (Entered: 12/15/2025)

#4

Dec 16, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#5

Dec 16, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/16/2025: On 12/12/2025, petitioner filed a 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's prayer for relief includes a request that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondents to immediately release petitioner from custody or provide petitioner with a bond hearing within 7 days. (Doc. No. 1 at 12 .) If petitioner seeks emergency relief, petitioner is DIRECTED to file a motion for temporary restraining order. Furthermore, the petition references evidence and declarations, but no supporting documents are attached to the petition. Petitioner is directed to file supporting documents that are referenced with any motion for a temporary restraining order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 12/16/2025)

#6

Dec 16, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/16/2025: (Text Only Entry). Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 4 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 court's "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 4 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 12/17/2025, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, by e-mail to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 4 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 12/18/2025. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's 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 APM) (Entered: 12/16/2025)

#7

Dec 16, 2025

CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Gutierrez, Bonita) (Entered: 12/16/2025)

Dec 16, 2025

Minute Order

#8

Dec 17, 2025

Certificate / Proof of Service

#9

Dec 18, 2025

Opposition to Motion

#10

Dec 19, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/19/2025: The court GRANTS petitioners motion to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. No. 2 ) because petitioner has alleged that he survived persecution that is of a sensitive nature, he argues that he and his family may experience harassment and retaliation if petitioners identity is revealed, and respondents have not opposed the motion. (Doc. Nos. 2 at 2; 9); Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (To determine whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously when the opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five factors[.]) (emphasis added); R.B.A. v. Noem, No. 25-cv-00562-KKE, 2025 WL 1285852, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2025) (finding sufficient grounds for Plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously in similar circumstances). Further, in respondents opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ), respondents concede that they do not believe that Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) is substantively distinguishable from the instant case. (Doc. No. 9 at 2 n.1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning as stated in Perez, petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ) is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his October 21, 2025 detention; 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 have the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying petitioners re-detention by clear and convincing evidence. 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: 12/19/2025)

Dec 19, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Pseudonym AND Order on Motion for TRO

#11

Dec 29, 2025

JOINT STATEMENT of the Parties per 10 Minute Order by R.A.M.A. (Gutierrez, Bonita) Modified on 1/8/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 12/29/2025)