Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01983

#1

Dec 22, 2025

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Dec 23, 2025

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 1/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#3

Dec 31, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#4

Jan 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/5/2026: 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 5:00 PM on 1/7/2026. 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 1/8/2026. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the US Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 5:00 PM on 1/5/2026. 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: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

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

#5

Jan 06, 2026

OPPOSITION to 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Pam Respondents re 4 Minute Order. Attorney Lee, Justin added. (Lee, Justin) Modified on 1/7/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#6

Jan 07, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/7/2026: In Respondents' 5 Opposition to Petitioner's 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), is not substantively distinguishable. (See Doc. No. 5 at 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Labrador-Prato and Selis Tinoco, Petitioner's 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 Petitioner's 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. 5), 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: 01/07/2026)

Jan 07, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO