Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00621

#1

Jan 25, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem by Rinku Sharma. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12804862) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kaur, Gurpreet) Modified on 1/27/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/25/2026)

#2

Jan 25, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Rinku Sharma. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Notice of Motion, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kaur, Gurpreet) Modified on 1/27/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/25/2026)

#3

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 CM) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#4

Jan 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/26/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 1/29/2026. 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 Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), 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 1/30/2026. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the U.S. Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 12:00 PM on 1/27/2026. 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: 01/26/2026)

#5

Jan 26, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 1/27/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#6

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. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

Jan 26, 2026

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

#7

Jan 27, 2026

NOTICE of COMPLIANCE and PROOF of SERVICE by Rinku Sharma. (Kaur, Gurpreet) Modified on 1/28/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#8

Jan 27, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, REQUEST for 180-DAY PERIOD OF TIME to respond to 1 Petition by All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 1/28/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 01/27/2026)

#9

Jan 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/28/2026: In Respondents' 8 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 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 decisions from this court in Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) and D.L.C. v. Wofford, et al., 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026), and acknowledge that those cases are not distinguishable from this case. Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Selis and D.L.C., Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody with the same conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention; (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 seven (7) days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, 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. 8 at 2), and given that the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction, Stuhlbarg Int'l 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: 01/28/2026)

Jan 28, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#10

Feb 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 2/13/2026. Parties must review this MINUTE ORDER Document, which is a scheduling order." (1) Respondents' request for an extension of time (ECF No. 8) is denied. (2) Within 7 days of the date of this order, respondents shall file a status report to confirm that petitioner was released from custody as ordered by the district court. (3) If additional briefing is needed to decide the petition on the merits, within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties must so inform the Court. If the parties do not inform the Court by this deadline that additional briefing is needed to decide the petition on the merits, the Court will interpret this as confirmation that the petition may be decided on the merits based on the record currently before the court without any additional briefing. [See attached minute order for details.] (Deputy Clerk AW) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#11

Feb 13, 2026

STATUS REPORT by All Respondents. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 2/18/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#12

Mar 13, 2026

RESPONSE (Opposition) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem re 10 Minute Order. (Williams, Jonathan) Modified on 3/16/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#13

Mar 16, 2026

REPLY by Rinku Sharma re 12 Response. (Kaur, Gurpreet) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#14

Sep 08, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 9/8/2026 RECOMMENDING that The petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 be GRANTED. Permanent injunction be issued enjoining and restraining respondents from rearresting or re-detaining Petitioner Rinku Sharma (A-246-621-818) absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days' notice and a hearing before a neutral factfinder where respondents demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At any such hearing, petitioner shall be allowed to have his counsel present. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment for petitioner and close this case. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Dena M. Coggins; Objections to these F&Rs due within seven days. (Deputy Clerk LMS) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#15

Sep 11, 2026

OBJECTIONS to 14 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS by Respondents Pamela Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#16

Sep 28, 2026

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/25/2026; ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations. The 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. A permanent injunction is issued enjoining and restraining respondents from rearresting or re-detaining Petitioner Rinku Sharma (A-246-621-818) absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days' notice and a hearing before a neutral factfinder where respondents demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At any such hearing, petitioner shall be allowed to have his counsel present. This injunction does not address other circumstances where detention authority is established under different authority than what is presented in this case (e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for petitioner. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk KEZ) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#17

Sep 28, 2026

JUDGMENT dated *9/28/2026* pursuant to order signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/25/2026 in favor of Petitioner. (Deputy Clerk KEZ) (Entered: 09/28/2026)