Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01901

#1

Dec 17, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem by Jossie E Aranguren Pacheco. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12681631) (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities)(Gomez, Carla) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#2

Dec 17, 2025

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Jossie E Aranguren Pacheco. (Gomez, Carla) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#3

Dec 17, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#4

Dec 17, 2025

DECLARATION of Carla Gomez re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Gomez, Carla) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#5

Dec 17, 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 SSA) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#6

Dec 17, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/17/2025: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12/19/2025. 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 12/23/2025. 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: 12/17/2025)

Dec 17, 2025

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

#7

Dec 19, 2025

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney James Robert Conolly, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,James Robert Conolly, GOVT for Pam Bondi,James Robert Conolly, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,James Robert Conolly, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,James Robert Conolly, GOVT for Kristi Noem (Conolly, James) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#8

Dec 19, 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. (Conolly, James) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#9

Dec 19, 2025

Opposition to Motion

#10

Dec 22, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/22/2025: In Respondents 9 Opposition to Petitioners 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents acknowledge that the caselaw from this court in Labrador-Prato v. Noem et al., 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) and Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), address largely the same issues and are in the same procedural posture as this case. The only distinguishing fact identified by Respondents is that Petitioner was arrested for a DUI charge and shoplifting, which Respondents believe are more serious crimes than the DUI charge in Selis Tinoco, but Respondents do not explain why that fact is material to the analysis. Respondents acknowledge that the court in Selis Tinoco held that the petitioners DUI charge and the violations of the terms of his release were matters proper for an immigration judges consideration at a bond hearing to determine whether the petitioner was a danger to the community or a flight risk. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) The same is true here. Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning in Labrador-Prato, Petitioners 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner Jossie E Aranguren Pacheco shall be released immediately from 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 12/29/2025, 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 12/30/2025. Respondents may file a reply to Petitioners response by no later than 12/31/2025. If the parties agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties proposal. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

Dec 22, 2025

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

#11

Dec 23, 2025

REPLY by Jossie E Aranguren Pacheco re 9 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Gomez, Carla) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#12

Dec 26, 2025

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER re Request for Briefing Schedule by Sergio Albarran, Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Conolly, James) Modified on 12/30/2025 (HAH). (Entered: 12/26/2025)

#13

Dec 29, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/29/2025: Pursuant to the parties' 12 Stipulation, Respondents shall file their response to the 10 Order to Show Cause by no later than 1/12/2026, Petitioner shall file his response thereto by no later than 1/13/2026, and Respondents may file a reply by no later than 1/14/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec 29, 2025

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

#14

Jan 12, 2026

RESPONSE to 10 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Sergio Albarran, Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Conolly, James) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

#15

Jan 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued on 1/13/2026 by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins: On 12/22/2025, the court issued an 10 Order granting Petitioner's 3 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 1/12/2026, Respondents filed a 14 Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that 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 Int'l 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 10 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 10 Temporary Restraining Order and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

#16

Jan 13, 2026

REPLY by Jossie E Aranguren Pacheco re 14 Response to Order to Show Cause. (Gomez, Carla) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

Jan 13, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#17

Jan 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/30/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondent is GRANTED 7 (seven) days within which to inform the court whether Respondent intends to stand on the record as is or if Respondent wishes to present further briefing and evidence. If Respondent elects to stand on the existing record, the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be deemed submitted to the court for decision. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

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