Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-01440

#1

Feb 19, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by R. M.. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12927516) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice to Appear, # 2 Exhibit EAD Approval Notice, # 3 Exhibit Letter from Brother, # 4 Exhibit Student ID, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#2

Feb 19, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by R. M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 TRO Checklist, # 3 Proof of Service) (Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#3

Feb 19, 2026

MOTION to PROCEED under a PSEUDONYM by R. M.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jobson, Cara) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#4

Feb 19, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 3/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk CM) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#5

Feb 19, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT added for All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 2/23/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#6

Feb 19, 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: 02/19/2026)

#7

Feb 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/19/2026: 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. Respondents shall file a written opposition to the pending 2 motion for temporary restraining order and 3 motion to proceed under a pseudonym by 5:00 PM Friday, 2/20/2026. In that opposition, respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's 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), and other similar cases 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 JRM) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#8

Feb 19, 2026

ANSWER to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, OPPOSITION to Injunctive Relief and RESPONSE to 7 Minute Order by All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 2/23/2026 (KS). (Entered: 02/19/2026)

Feb 19, 2026

Minute Order

#9

Feb 20, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/2026: On 2/19/2026, petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order in which he alleges that he entered the United States on or about 10/19/2024 seeking asylum, was subsequently released with a notice to appear, and he was then re-arrested by immigration authorities without notice or a hearing. (Doc. No. 2 at 5.) Also on 2/19/2026, 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 the situations addressed by 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. 7.) In respondents' opposition (Doc. No. 8 ) to petitioner's pending motion (Doc. No. 2 ), respondents concede that "[t]here are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from this Court's prior Orders in" Perez and O.A.C.S. (Doc. No. 8 at 1.) Respondents also state they do not oppose conversion of the motion for temporary restraining order to a motion for preliminary injunction and do not request a hearing. (Id.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning as set forth 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 recent 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 court also GRANTS petitioner's unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. No. 3 ) based on a finding of good cause. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Pseudonym AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

Feb 24, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2026: The court hereby RESCINDS its referral of the 1 petition in this action to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire and instead REFERS the 1 petition to Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk PAB) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order

#11

Feb 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 2/25/2026. Parties must review this MINUTE ORDER Document, which is a scheduling order. (1) 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. (2) If additional briefing is needed to decide the petition on the merits, within 7 days of the date of this order, Respondents may file an answer. If Respondents do not file an answer by this deadline, the petition will be deemed submitted on the record currently before the court without any additional briefing. If Respondents file an answer, Petitioner may file a traverse within 7 days of the filing of Respondents' answer. [See attached document for details.] (Deputy Clerk AW) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#13

Mar 18, 2026

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 3/18/2026 RECOMMENDING that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted. Referred to Judge Dena Coggins. Objections due within 7 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Deputy Clerk VLK)

#14

Mar 24, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#15

Apr 06, 2026

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/03/26 ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations IN FULL. 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED as follows: Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner absent exigent circumstances without providing petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge, at which hearing respondents shall bear the burden of demonstrating that petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk by clear and convincing evidence; The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk KML)

#16

Apr 06, 2026

Judgment