Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01908

#1

Dec 17, 2025

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Chilber Pedrozo Munoz. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#2

Dec 17, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Christopher Chestnut by Chilber Pedrozo Munoz. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12683337) (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#3

Dec 17, 2025

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Chilber Pedrozo Munoz. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#4

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)

#5

Dec 17, 2025

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Chilber Pedrozo Munoz re 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#6

Dec 17, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/17/2025: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 2 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 noon on 12/22/2025. 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 JJD) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

Dec 17, 2025

Minute Order

#7

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. (Beles, Robert) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#8

Dec 22, 2025

RESPONSE by Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem to 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 6 Minute Order,,,,. Attorney Campbell, Charles added. (Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#9

Dec 22, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/22/2025: In Respondents 8 Opposition to Petitioners 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). However, Respondents acknowledge 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), and acknowledge that this matter is not substantively distinguishable from those cases. Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning in Labrador-Prato and Selis Tinoco, Petitioners 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner 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. Moreover, in light of Respondents non-opposition to treating Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (See Doc. No. 8 at 2 n.1), and given that 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), the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms. This case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

Dec 22, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

Dec 31, 2025

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

#12

Jan 09, 2026

Order Staying Case