Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-02620

#1

Apr 07, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Sawan Kumar. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13149850) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet CS, # 2 Proof of Service POS)(Mann, Kamal) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#2

Apr 07, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Sawan Kumar. (Mann, Kamal) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#3

Apr 07, 2026

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 5/11/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Litigant Letter) (Deputy Clerk FMN) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#4

Apr 07, 2026

CERTIFICATE / PROOF of SERVICE by Sawan Kumar. (Mann, Kamal) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#5

Apr 08, 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: 04/08/2026)

#6

Apr 08, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 4/8/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. In that Motion, Petitioner states he was detained on 12/9/2025, nearly 120 days before filing that Motion. Petitioner does not explain why he did not seek injunctive relief sooner. Notably, Local Rule 231(b) states: "In considering a motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court will consider whether the applicant could have sought relief by motion for preliminary injunction at an earlier date without the necessity for seeking last-minute relief by motion for temporary restraining order." Because Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is untimely, the court will CONVERT that Motion to a 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Further, the court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the 1 Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), and D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). The court is contemplating ruling directly on the Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) ("Before or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner's habeas petition] as law and justice require."); A.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00551-KES-SAB, 2026 WL 227112, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of habeas petition simultaneously). Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 12:00PM on 4/13/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the court's prior orders listed above. Petitioner may file a Reply by 4/27/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Petition. 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 4/8/2026. 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: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

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

#7

Apr 13, 2026

Dismiss

#8

Apr 22, 2026

Order

#9

Apr 28, 2026

MINUTE ORDER (Text Only Entry) issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/28/2026: On 4/7/2026, petitioner, proceeding with counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) and motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ). In his petition, petitioner requests his release and alleges that his detention absent an individualized determination of whether he poses a danger or a flight risk violates the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. (Doc. No. 1 at 11-13.) On 4/13/2026, respondents filed a combined motion to dismiss and opposition to petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 7 .) Therein, respondents alerted the court that petitioner previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on 2/2/2026 in case no. 1:26-cv-00868-DAD-AC, that the court ordered a bond hearing for petitioner in that case, and that an immigration judge ("IJ") determined that petitioner posed both a danger to the community and a flight risk on 2/12/2026 at the court ordered bond hearing. (Id. at 24-31.) Petitioner has appealed the IJ's finding to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). (Id. at 33-34.) On 4/22/2026, the court issued an order relating these cases. (Doc. No. 8 .) The court finds that petitioner is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claims because those claims rest on the incorrect premise that petitioner has not been afforded an individualized determination of whether he is a danger or a flight risk. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2 ) is DENIED. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1 ) is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for further proceedings. (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

Apr 28, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#10

May 11, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/11/2026. Petitioner, proceeding through counsel, has filed a petition 1 that seeks release on the ground that he has not been provided a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. However, the record reflects that petitioner was given a bond hearing as ordered in Case No. 1:26-cv-0868 DAD AC, and that bond was denied on the grounds that petitioner is both a danger and a flight risk. See ECF No. 7 at 24-30. In light of the fact that petitioner has been provided a bond hearing, within 7 days petitioner shall show cause why the petition should not be denied without prejudice to filing an amended petition or motion to enforce in Case No. 1:26-cv-0868 DAD AC. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JAA) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

May 11, 2026

Minute Order

#11

May 28, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#12

Jul 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations AND Order on Motion to Dismiss

#13

Jul 13, 2026

Judgment