Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01884

#1

Dec 16, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pamela J. Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by Jashanpreet Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12677837) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Civil Coversheet)(Kaur, Simranjit) (Entered: 12/16/2025)

#2

Dec 16, 2025

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jashanpreet Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibits, # 3 TRO Checklist, # 4 Proposed Order)(Kaur, Simranjit) Modified on 12/18/2025 (HAH). (Entered: 12/16/2025)

#3

Dec 16, 2025

CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorney Simranjit Kaur re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Your Civil Cover Sheet is not formatted properly, please flatten your PDF and re-file a properly formatted PDF. For information on how toflatten a pdf, please refer to our website under CM/ECF E-Filing > PDF Information > Page 7. If you need assistance, please contactthe CM/ECF help desk at 866-884-5444. (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 12/16/2025)

#4

Dec 16, 2025

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 1/20/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk CRM) (Entered: 12/16/2025)

#5

Dec 16, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/16/2025: 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 by 5:00 PM on 12/18/2025. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before 12/22/2025. 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: 12/16/2025)

Dec 16, 2025

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

#6

Dec 17, 2025

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Elliot C. Wong, GOVT for All Respondents. (Wong, Elliot) Modified on 12/18/2025 (HAH). (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#7

Dec 18, 2025

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and RESPONSE to 1 Petition by All Respondents. (Wong, Elliot) Modified on 12/19/2025 (HAH). (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#8

Dec 18, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/18/2025: In Respondents 7 Opposition to Petitioners 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents do not identify any provision of law or fact in this case that would substantively distinguish it from this courts decision in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025). Indeed, Respondents concede that this case is not substantively distinguishable. (See Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning in Labrador-Prato, Petitioners 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner Jashanpreet Singh shall be released immediately from the Respondents custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 7 days notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioners eligibility for bond must be considered. Further, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than 12/22/2025, as to why this court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as this Order. Petitioner may file a response thereto by no later than 12/23/2025. Respondents may file a reply to Petitioners response by no later than 12/24/2025. If the parties agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#9

Dec 18, 2025

RESPONSE to 8 Minute Order and REQUEST to Advance Merits Determination by All Respondents. (Wong, Elliot) Modified on 12/19/2025 (HAH). (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#10

Dec 18, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued on 12/18/2025 by the Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: On 12/18/2025, the court issued an 8 Order granting Petitioners 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and requiring Respondents to show cause why the court should not issue a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the Temporary Restraining Order. On 12/18/2025, Respondents filed a 9 Response to the Order to Show Cause, indicating they have nothing further to add to the arguments raised in their Opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order. The standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is substantially identical to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction. Stuhlbarg Intl Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Therefore, for the same reasons as those stated in the 8 Order granting a Temporary Restraining Order, the court FINDS Petitioner has sufficiently shown that all four Winter factors weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms as the 8 Temporary Restraining Order and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/18/2025)

Dec 18, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

Dec 18, 2025

Minute Order

#11

Jan 12, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 1/12/2026: The parties shall file within fourteen days of the date of this order a joint status report addressing the parties' plan to proceed with this action. The joint status report should address, at minimum, whether any motion practice is anticipated, and whether the petition is moot. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

Jan 12, 2026

Minute Order

#12

Jan 14, 2026

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME in which to provide status report re briefing schedule by respondents re 11 Minute Order. (Wong, Elliot) Modified on 1/15/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 01/14/2026)

#14

Feb 20, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

Apr 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#17

Apr 23, 2026

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/22/2026 ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The preliminary injunctive relief previously granted is permanent. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk OML)

#18

Apr 23, 2026

Judgment