Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-02010

#1

Dec 28, 2025

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Dec 28, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#3

Dec 28, 2025

Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider

#4

Dec 29, 2025

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/29/2025: 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 today, 12/29/2025, 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 Tuesday, 12/30/2025. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address: (1) whether any provision of law or fact in this case substantially distinguishes it from this court's decision in O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) regarding whether § 1226 governs petitioner's detention; and (2) whether any provision of law or fact in this case substantially distinguishes it from this court's decision in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) regarding the due process analysis therein. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#5

Dec 29, 2025

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE with 4 Minute Order and PROOF OF SERVICE by Jatin Jatin. (Kaur, Gurpreet) Modified on 12/30/2025 (HAH). (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#6

Dec 29, 2025

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Shea Jon Kenny, GOVT for All Respondents. (Kenny, Shea) Modified on 12/30/2025 (HAH). (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#7

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. (Kenny, Shea) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec 29, 2025

Minute Order

#8

Dec 30, 2025

OPPOSITION by Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Kenny, Shea) (Entered: 12/30/2025)

#9

Dec 30, 2025

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/30/2025: On 12/28/2025, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2 ). On 12/29/2025, the court issued an order directing respondents to indicate whether this matter is legally or factually distinguishable from those addressed by this courts orders in O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) or Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025). (Doc. No. 4 ). In their opposition, respondents have indicated that they reviewed the cases cited in the Courts December 29 minute order and agree[] that this case is in the same procedural and factual posture, and poses substantially the same questions of law, as this Courts decisions in O.A.C.S. and Perez. (Doc. No. 8 at 12). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in O.A.C.S. and Perez, petitioners motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is GRANTED in part and the court orders as follows: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody under the same conditions to which he was subject prior to his re-detention; and (2) respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will bear the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances to justify petitioners re-detention. Petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order seeking an order enjoining respondents from transferring petitioner out of the Eastern District of California is denied as having been rendered moot. Under the circumstances of the 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