Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01932

#1

Dec 18, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Harjeet Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12688043) (Bhatnagar, Nikhil) (Main Document 1 replaced on 12/19/2025) (JJD). (Entered: 12/18/2025)

#2

Dec 19, 2025

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#3

Dec 24, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#4

Dec 25, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/25/2025: (Text Only Entry). Petitioner filed a 3 motion for temporary restraining on 12/24/2025 but appears to have filed a partial copy of his motion. In order for the court to decide the merits of petitioners motion for temporary restraining order, petitioner is DIRECTED to re-file a complete copy of his motion for temporary restraining order and serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. (Deputy Clerk CAL) (Entered: 12/25/2025)

Dec 25, 2025

Minute Order

#5

Dec 27, 2025

Declaration

#6

Dec 27, 2025

Proposed Order

#7

Dec 29, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/29/2025: Following the courts 4 minute order on 12/25/2025 ordering petitioner to file a complete copy of his motion for temporary restraining order, petitioner filed the 5 declaration of Harjeet Singh and 6 proposed order in support of his 3 motion for temporary restraining order on 12/27/2025. However, petitioner has not filed a complete copy of his motion for temporary restraining order. The 3 motion for temporary restraining order currently on file does not include an introduction, statement of facts, or legal standard, and appears to begin mid-argument, suggesting to the court that it is missing pages. In order for the court to decide the merits of petitioners motion for temporary restraining order, petitioner is, once again, DIRECTED to re-file a complete copy of his motion for temporary restraining order and serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov. The previously scheduled hearing date of 1/5/2026 is VACATED. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#8

Dec 29, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#9

Dec 29, 2025

Exhibit

#10

Dec 29, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/29/2025: (Text Only Entry).Pending the issuance of the courts order resolving the pending 3, 8 motions 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 courts 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 3, 8 motions for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 12/30/2025, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion(s) for temporary restraining order, and accompanying papers, along with this order, to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov; and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. The court has twice directed petitioner to serve respondents by email with the listed documents but proof of such service has not been filed on the docket. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 3, 8 motions for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Friday, 1/2/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this courts decision in Orejuela Gutierrez v. Chesnut, No. 1:25-cv-01515-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3514495 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 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 CAL) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec 29, 2025

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

Dec 29, 2025

Minute Order

#11

Dec 30, 2025

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Robin Tubesing, GOVT for All Respondents. (Tubesing, Robin) Modified on 1/15/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 12/30/2025)

#12

Dec 30, 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. (Tubesing, Robin) (Entered: 12/30/2025)

#13

Dec 30, 2025

NOTICE of COMPLIANCE with 10 Minute Order by Harjeet Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bhatnagar, Nikhil) Modified on 1/15/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 12/30/2025)

#14

Jan 02, 2026

ANSWER by Respondents to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and RESPONSE/OPPOSITION to 3, 8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Tubesing, Robin) Modified on 1/5/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#15

Jan 06, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/2026: On 12/24/2025, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3 .) Because the initial filing appeared to be missing pages, the court directed petitioner to re-file a complete copy of his motion. (Doc. Nos. 4, 7 .) Petitioner subsequently filed a complete copy of his motion for temporary restraining order on 12/29/2025. (Doc. No. 8 .) On the same day, the court issued an order directing respondents to indicate whether this matter is legally or factually distinguishable from that addressed by this courts order in Orejuela Gutierrez v. Chesnut, No. 1:25-cv-01515-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3514495 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025). (Doc. No. 10 .) Nonetheless, respondents failed to address the above-cited case in their opposition despite the courts direction to do so. See (Doc. No. 14 .) The court will construe respondents non-responsiveness as a concession that the instant case is not legally or factually distinguishable from Orejuela Gutierrez. Still, respondents argue, without supporting citation to authority, that petitioner has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, because petitioners 8/21/2025 bond hearing was substantive. (Doc. No. 14 at 3.) Petitioner argues that he was denied bond and continues to be denied bond because the immigration judge (IJ) and respondents have erroneously determined that he is subject to § 1225(b) and therefore not eligible for release on bond. (Doc. No. 8 at 2, 5.) Respondents argue that the IJ denied bond because petitioner was found to be a danger to the community and that the IJ did not make a finding regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (Doc. No. 14 at 3.) However, respondents also maintain that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). (Doc. No. 14 at 1 n. 1, 3.) The court concludes that it would be contrary to law to deny a request made by petitioner for a custody redetermination hearing on the grounds that he is not entitled to such a hearing because he is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b). See Orejuela Gutierrez v. Chesnut, 2025 WL 3514495 at *3-5.Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Orejuela Gutierrez, petitioners motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. Nos. 3, 8 ) is GRANTED in part as follows: (1) An immigration judge shall provide petitioner with the opportunity to apply for a custody redetermination hearing in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e), and consider petitioners application on the merits; (2) within seven (7) days of the IJs decision regarding petitioners request, the parties shall file a status report in this case confirming that a decision has been provided. Petitioners request for a temporary restraining order ordering respondents to immediately release him is DENIED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in Orejuela Gutierrez, in which this court declined to review an IJs previous dangerousness determination on the limited record provided and in a shortened timeframe. 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. The previously scheduled hearing date of 1/4/2027 is VACATED. (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

Jan 06, 2026

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

#18

Feb 27, 2026

Preliminary Injunction

#19

Feb 27, 2026

In Forma Pauperis

#20

Mar 04, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#21

Mar 06, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion