Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01975

#1

Dec 22, 2025

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Dec 22, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Dec 22, 2025

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

Dec 22, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/22/2025: (Text Only Entry). Pending the issuance of the courts order resolving the pending 2 motion 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than tomorrow, 12/23/2025, by 5:00 PM, petitioners counsel is DIRECTED (1) to serve respondents with a copy of the petition, motion 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. Counsel for respondents shall promptly enter Notices of Appearance. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Friday, 12/26/2025. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this courts decisions in N.D.N. v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-01587-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3251102 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), Franco v. Meyer, No. 1:25-cv-01620-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3280782 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 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 APM) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

Dec 22, 2025

Minute Order

#5

Dec 23, 2025

Certificate / Proof of Service

#6

Dec 27, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/27/2025: (Text Only Entry). On 12/22/2025, the court ordered respondents to file a written opposition to the pending motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 12/26/2025. (Doc. No. 4.) Respondents failed to file their opposition within the allotted time. Therefore, respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, 12/29/2025, and a failure to do so will be construed as indicating that respondents have no opposition to the granting of the requested relief. (Deputy Clerk APM) (Entered: 12/27/2025)

Dec 27, 2025

Minute Order

#7

Dec 29, 2025

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Charles Campbell, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Charles Campbell, GOVT for Pamela Bondi,Charles Campbell, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Charles Campbell, GOVT for Joseph B Eldow,Charles Campbell, GOVT for Executive Office for Immigration Review,Charles Campbell, GOVT for Todd Lyons,Charles Campbell, GOVT for Kristi Noem,Charles Campbell, GOVT for Rebecca Sheehy,Charles Campbell, GOVT for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#8

Dec 29, 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. (Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#9

Dec 29, 2025

RESPONSE by Sergio Albarran, Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Joseph B Eldow, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Rebecca Sheehy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. (Campbell, Charles) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#10

Dec 30, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/30/2025: In respondents opposition (Doc. No. 9 ) to petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ), respondents concede that with regards to Petitioners re-detention without an adequate showing of changed circumstances, the instant matter is not substantively distinguishable from N.D.N. v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-01587-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3251102 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025) and Franco v. Meyer, No. 1:25-cv-01620-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3280782 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025). (Doc. No. 9 at 4.) Respondents argument that this court is without jurisdiction to review denial of an adjustment of status application is well taken. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 33940 (2022) (finding that district courts lack jurisdiction to hear challenges to denial of adjustment of status applications); see also Garcia v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 146 F.4th 743, 748 (9th Cir. 2025) (The reference to subparagraph (D) concerns 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which preserves review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals. Such a petition for review arises from removal proceedings before an IJ with review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and it is eventually brought in a circuit court of appeals, like ours.). However, the court is not persuaded by respondents argument that petitioner is currently subject to the 90-day period of mandatory detention because petitioners removal order became administratively final on 2/2/2024. See Diaz v. Gonzales, No. 06-cv-01550-PHX-DGC, 2007 WL 1188192, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 20, 2007) (Petitioner's removal period under this statute began on April 2, 2007, when the Ninth Circuit entered its final order in Petitioners appeal.). Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning as stated in N.D.N. and Franco, petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody on the same conditions that governed his release immediately prior to his detention on 12/8/2025; (2) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner written notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator; (3) Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from using the adjustment of status process to re-detain petitioner, including at or near any future interview related to petitioners application for adjustment of status; and (4) Petitioners request that the court compel respondents to reopen and adjudicate petitioners adjustment of status application before USCIS is DENIED. 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.(Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 12/30/2025)

Dec 30, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO