Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-02044

#1

Dec 29, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Andres Cajbon Poob. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12707197) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration Declaration and Exhbits)(Arya, Reena) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#2

Dec 29, 2025

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Andres Cajbon Poob. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Arya, Reena) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

#3

Dec 29, 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 tomorrow, 12/30/2025, by 5:00 PM, petitioner's 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, 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 Hernandez Lopez v. Albarran, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01890-DAD-SCR (HC), 2025 WL 3691082 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 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 PAB) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec 29, 2025

Minute Order

#5

Dec 30, 2025

Certificate / Proof of Service

#6

Dec 31, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jan 02, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Jan 02, 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. (Arya, Reena) (Entered: 01/02/2026)

#9

Jan 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/5/2026: On 12/29/2025, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). On 12/29/25, the court set a briefing schedule and directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish this case from the circumstances addressed in this courts decision in Hernandez Lopez v. Albarran, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01890-DAD-SCR (HC), 2025 WL 3691082 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2025) and other similar cases recently decided by this court. On 1/2/2026, respondents filed their opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to petitioners motion. Respondents concede therein that this case does not appear to present any facts distinguishing it substantively from Hernandez Lopez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01890-DAD-SCR (HC), 2025 WL 3691082 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2025). (Doc. No. 7 at 3). Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 7 at 2). Accordingly, pursuant to the courts reasoning as stated in Hernandez Lopez, petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is CONVERTED into a motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from respondents custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his November 24, 2025, detention; (2) respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying petitioners re-detention. 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 petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO