Eastern District of California • 2:26-cv-00426

#1

Feb 13, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#2

Feb 13, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#3

Feb 13, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/19/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk OML) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#4

Feb 13, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Brittany Gunter for Pamela Jo Bondi,Brittany Gunter for Todd M. Lyons,Brittany Gunter for Kristi Noem,Brittany Gunter for Warden (Gunter, Brittany) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#5

Feb 13, 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: 02/13/2026)

#6

Feb 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/13/2026: 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, in light of petitioners pro se status, the court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order 2, and a copy of this order to the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California by email at usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov, by Tuesday, 2/17/2026 at 5 PM. 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 Wednesday, 2/18/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decision in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 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: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order

Feb 13, 2026

RECEIPT number 200017092 for $5.00 from Francisco A. Salcedo. (Deputy Clerk OML)

Feb 13, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents served on Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk OML)

Feb 13, 2026

Service by Mail

#7

Feb 17, 2026

Notice of Related Case

#8

Feb 18, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#9

Feb 18, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

#10

Feb 18, 2026

Certificate / Proof of Service

Feb 26, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Unable to forward: 3 Prisoner New Case Documents sent to Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. Notice of Change of Address due by 4/6/2026. (Deputy Clerk KML)

#11

Mar 02, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/2/2026: On 2/13/2026, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). When setting the briefing schedule on that motion the court directed respondents to address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from the circumstances addressed in this court's order in Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), in which the court concluded that due process required a pre-detention hearing to protect the petitioner's liberty interest in his continued release following his release pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In their opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) respondents concede that this case does not appear distinguishable in law or fact from Ayala Cajina, yet they also state that petitioner was released on parole, apparently pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). (Doc. No. 8 at 1-2; [8-1] at 2.) Respondents request that the court accept their opposition to petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order as an opposition to any motion for preliminary injunction, as well. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) Respondents argue that petitioner is subject to detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). (Doc. No. 8 at 3-5.) The court finds analogous and persuasive its prior orders in Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), where the petitioner was released pursuant to § 1182(d)(5) and the court determined that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his procedural due process claim because he had demonstrated a liberty interest in his continued release, and his continued detention without written notice and a hearing was unlawful, and Singh v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01821-DAD-SCR, 2025 WL 3640678 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), where the court determined that a petitioner previously released pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) could not be subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Here, petitioner entered the United States on 9/17/2022 and was paroled on 12/15/2022. (Doc. No. [8-1] at 2.) Petitioner was re-detained on or about 12/6/2025 without written notice or an opportunity to contest his re-detention. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Respondents state that petitioner has pending traffic violations in Utah, but they do not argue that these alleged traffic violations were the reason for his re-detention. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) The court therefore concludes that petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that his parole revocation violated due process because he did not receive written notice of the reason for revocation. See Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1144-46 (D. Or. 2025) (describing the requisite procedures to revoke parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182, including providing of written notice of revocation to the petitioner); see also Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1165 (S.D. Cal. 2025) ("Thus, Petitioner was entitled to due process in his parole revocation. Particularly, he was entitled to both notification of revocation and the reasoning for revocation, if not also an opportunity to be heard and contest the determination.")Accordingly, for the reasons explained above and based upon the court's reasoning in Rocha Chavarria and Singh, 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 12/6/2025, 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 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 Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 02, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 11 Minute Order served on Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk PAB)

Mar 02, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#12

Mar 09, 2026

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

Mar 09, 2026

Service by Mail

Mar 09, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 12 Order served on Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk KS)

#13

Mar 10, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Warden. (Gunter, Brittany) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Unable to Forward: 11 Minute Order sent to Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. Notice of Change of Address due by 4/24/2026. (Deputy Clerk OML)

Mar 23, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, No Mail Receptacle: 12 Order sent to Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. Notice of Change of Address due by 4/30/2026. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

#14

May 27, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Sean Davis, GOVT added for All Respondents. Attorney Brittany Gunter terminated. (Hemesath, Audrey) Modified on 6/2/2026 (KS). (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#15

Jun 02, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

Jun 02, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 15 Findings and Recommendations served on Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

Jun 02, 2026

Service by Mail

#16

Jun 08, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

Jun 10, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Undeliverable, Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward: 15 Findings and Recommendations sent to Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. Notice of Change of Address due by 7/20/2026. (Deputy Clerk AKP)

#17

Jul 13, 2026

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

#18

Jul 13, 2026

Judgment

Jul 13, 2026

Service by Mail

Jul 13, 2026

SERVICE BY MAIL: 18 Judgment and 17 Order served on Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk OML)

Jul 27, 2026

MAIL RETURNED as Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward: 18 Judgment and 17 Order sent to Francisco Antonio Salcedo Rodriguez. (Deputy Clerk AKP)