Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-00837

#1

Jan 30, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against all Respondents by Monu Monu. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12838566) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Adoghe, Theodora) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#2

Feb 02, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Monu Monu. (Adoghe, Theodora) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#3

Feb 02, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk KEZ) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#4

Feb 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/2/2026: Pending the issuance of the court's 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, 2/2/2026, 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 2 motion for temporary restraining order by tomorrow, 2/3/2026, at 5:00 PM. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025), O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or otherwise indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Furthermore, respondents are directed to indicate in their opposition whether they oppose converting the motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction. If the parties were to jointly agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the court will consider the parties' proposal. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#5

Feb 02, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Cody S. Chapple for Moises Becerra,Cody S. Chapple for Pamela Bondi,Cody S. Chapple for Todd M. Lyons,Cody S. Chapple for Kristi Noem,Cody S. Chapple for Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility (Chapple, Cody) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#6

Feb 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. (Anonymous) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

Feb 02, 2026

Minute Order

#7

Feb 03, 2026

ANSWER (Response) to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by All Respondents. (Chapple, Cody) Modified on 2/10/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/03/2026)

#8

Feb 03, 2026

PROOF of SERVICE re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 4 Minute Order by Monu Monu. (Adoghe, Theodora) Modified on 2/10/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/03/2026)

#9

Feb 04, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/4/2027: On 2/2/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order wherein petitioner alleges that he entered the United States on 12/9/2023 without inspection but was subsequently detained and then released on 1/2/2024 under an order of supervision, and was then re-detained without explanation on 8/25/2025 when he appeared as directed for a routine ICE check-in. (Doc. No. 2 at 4.) Subsequently on 2/2/2026, the court set a briefing schedule on petitioner's pending motion and ordered respondents to substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Perez v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01540-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3187578 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025) and O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025). (Doc. No. 4.) In respondents' opposition (Doc. No. 7 ) to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ), respondents concede that they are "unaware of any substantively distinguishable facts between this case and this Court's decisions in" Perez and O.A.C.S. (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Respondents also state that they do not oppose treating the temporary restraining order as a motion for preliminary injunction, and they do not request a hearing on the latter motion. (Id.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as stated in Perez and O.A.C.S., petitioner's 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 8/25/2025 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-detention hearing before an immigration judge where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances justifying petitioner's 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 Carolyn K. Delaney for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

Feb 04, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

Apr 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Chief Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/20/2026: Petitioner (A No. 221 387 704) is GRANTED 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order to file a traverse. If no traverse is filed, the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus will stand submitted. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

Apr 20, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings

#11

May 05, 2026

TRAVERSE by Monu Monu. (Adoghe, Theodora) Modified on 5/11/2026 (KS). (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#12

May 26, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS (Text Only): Petitioner (A No. 221 387 704) is proceeding with a 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging arrest and detention by ICE. The district court has ordered, by way of preliminary injunctive relief, Petitioner's release and that detention not occur absent certain protections. Prior to arrest, Petitioner was released into the United States by ICE premised upon either an explicit or implicit finding that Petitioner was not dangerous or a flight risk. While on release, Petitioner did not commit any crimes, materially complied with conditions of release and is not subject to a final order of removal. Considering all of these factors, and consistent with the court's rulings in Martinez v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-1826 TLN CKD P, ECF No. 14 ; Rebolledo v. Chestnut, 1:25-cv-1904 CKD P, ECF No. 15 ; Esteban-Escalante v. Warden, Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, 1:26-cv-0096 DC CKD P, ECF No. 10 and H.S. v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility, 1:25-cv-1924 CKD P, ECF No. 21, the court finds Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated, RECOMMENDS THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF NO. 1 ) BE GRANTED, THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELEIF PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BE MADE PERMANENT and THIS CASE BE CLOSED. 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 7 (seven) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 7 (seven) days after 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). (Deputy Clerk LMK) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#13

Jul 13, 2026

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

#14

Jul 13, 2026

Judgment

#15

Oct 13, 2026

Attorney Fees