Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00596

#1

Jan 23, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Tarsam Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12803444) (Bhatnagar, Nikhil) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#2

Jan 26, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/2/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk EF) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#3

Jan 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Brittany Gunter for Pamela Bondi,Brittany Gunter for Todd M. Lyons,Brittany Gunter for Kristi Noem,Brittany Gunter for Ernesto M. Santacruz, Jr (Gunter, Brittany) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#4

Jan 26, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Tarsam Singh. (Bhatnagar, Nikhil) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#5

Jan 26, 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. (Gunter, Brittany) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#6

Jan 26, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Tarsam Singh. (Bhatnagar, Nikhil) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#7

Jan 27, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/27/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's order resolving the pending 4 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 4 motion for temporary restraining order. Further, no later than today 1/27/2026, 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 4 motion for temporary restraining order by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, 1/28/2026. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

Jan 27, 2026

Minute Order

#8

Jan 28, 2026

MOTION to DISMISS 1 Petition by All Respondents. (Gunter, Brittany) Modified on 1/29/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#9

Jan 30, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/30/2026: On 1/26/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 4 ). On 1/28/2026, respondents filed a motion to dismiss and opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to the motion. In that motion to dismiss and opposition, respondents argue only that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention by virtue of being present in the United States, an argument that the undersigned has rejected on several recent occasions. Having considered the circumstances of petitioner's current detention and the parties' arguments, the court finds analogous and persuasive the undersigned's previous orders in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), where the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in their continued release, and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), in which the court concluded that previously releasing the petitioner on his own recognizance created a reliance interest such that the petitioner was entitled to the due process available under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Here, petitioner arrived in the United States in July of 2022 and has participated in immigration court hearings and the asylum process after being released by immigration authorities. (Doc. No. 1 at 20-22.) Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Ayala Cajina and O.A.C.S., petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is GRANTED and respondents' motion to dismiss the underlying habeas petition (Doc. No. 8 ) is DENIED. 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 re-detention on October 6, 2025; and (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. 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 regarding a briefing schedule for a motion for preliminary injunction and submit a joint status report regarding scheduling no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of entry of this order. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Dismiss

Feb 05, 2026

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

#15

Jul 28, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text only) signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 7/28/2026: After petitioner initiated this action, the court granted injunctive relief by way of ordering petitioner's release. (ECF No. 9 .) Still pending is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 .) The primary dispute between the parties is whether re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights. I have addressed this issue previously and have consistently found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violates a noncitizen's due process rights. See, e.g., Amarillo v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-1623-JDP, 2026 WL 279856 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026). After considering the parties' filings, and for the reasons stated in Amarillo and similar cases, I find that petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated and hereby RECOMMEND the following: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be GRANTED; (2) the preliminary injunctive relief previously granted, ECF No. 9, be made permanent; and (3) the Clerk of Court be ordered to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

Jul 28, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#16

Aug 27, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#17

Aug 27, 2026

Judgment