Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01930

#1

Dec 18, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Lady Alexandra Belalcazar Arcos. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12688008) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#2

Dec 18, 2025

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Lady Alexandra Belalcazar Arcos. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Declaration, # 4 TRO Checklist, # 5 TRO Proposed Order, # 6 Preliminary Injunction Proposed Order) (Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#3

Dec 19, 2025

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 1/23/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk JJD) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#5

Dec 19, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/19/2025: 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 12:00 PM on 12/23/2025. 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 12/24/2025. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the US Attorneys Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioners Counsel shall do so by no later than 5:00 PM on 12/19/2025. 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: 12/19/2025)

#6

Dec 19, 2025

Certificate / Proof of Service

Dec 19, 2025

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

#7

Dec 22, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#8

Dec 23, 2025

OPPOSITION by Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Core Civic Inc., Kristi Noem to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Attorney Barton, Joseph added. (Barton, Joseph) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#9

Dec 23, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/23/2025: In Respondents 8 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 decisions 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). Indeed, Respondents concede that this case is not substantively distinguishable. (See Doc. No. 8 at 2 n.1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning in Labrador-Prato and Selis Tinoco, Petitioners 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner Lady Alexandra Belalcazar Arcos shall be released immediately from the Respondents custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on her, 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: 12/23/2025)

Dec 23, 2025

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

#10

Dec 29, 2025

RESPONSE to 9 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Moises Becerra, Pamela Bondi, Core Civic Inc., Kristi Noem. (Barton, Joseph) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#11

Dec 29, 2025

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 12/29/2025: On 12/23/2025, the court issued an 9 Order granting Petitioner's 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 12/29/2025, Respondents filed a 10 Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that they oppose issuance of a Preliminary Injunction on the same grounds set forth in their 8 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 9 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 9 Temporary Restraining Order and REFERS this matter to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec 29, 2025

Minute Order

#12

Dec 31, 2025

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

#13

Jan 06, 2026

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. (Salgado, Mario) (Entered: 01/06/2026)