Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03544

#1

May 07, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Defendants by Lydia Rabara Swinburne. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13297642) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Mendoza, Armida) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#2

May 07, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Lydia Rabara Swinburne. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 TRO Checklist, # 3 Declaration)(Mendoza, Armida) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#3

May 08, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#4

May 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: 05/08/2026)

#5

May 08, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/8/2026: Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 5/12/2026. Petitioner shall file a Reply by 5/13/2026. 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 JRW) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

May 08, 2026

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

#6

May 12, 2026

Dismiss

#7

May 13, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#8

May 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/18/2026: In Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that Respondents unlawfully detained her when she appeared at a mandatory adjustment of status interview on 4/7/2026 relating to her husband's [1-1] Petition for Alien Relative filed on her behalf. Petitioner emphasizes that courts both within and outside the Eastern District have found that the government violates the Immigration and Nationality Act when it detains a noncitizen at an adjustment of status interview, thereby interfering with the noncitizen's ability to apply for relief to which they are statutorily entitled. You, Xiu Qing v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 451, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ("Did Respondents violate [the Immigration and Nationality Act] when they invited Petitioner to an I-485 interview for a green card, but then, rather than interview him, arrested and detained him? Placed in proper statutory context... the answer to this question is yes."); Franco v. Meyer, No. 1:25-cv-01620-DAD-CKD, 2025 WL 3280782, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025) ("[T]he court concludes that petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that arresting him at his adjustment of status interview violates the [Immigration and Nationality Act]"). In their 6 Opposition, Respondents contend that Petitioner's claim is distinguishable from You and Franco because Petitioner was detained following her 3/20/2026 arrest for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Inflicting Corporal Injury on Spouse. But Petitioner does not contest, and this order does not address, whether Petitioner may be lawfully detained under § 1226(a) in relation to that arrest. Instead, this Order addresses whether Respondents may "use[] the adjustment of status scheme as a sword when it was intended to be used as a shield." You, 321 F. Supp. 3d at 466. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in You and Franco, Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that her arrest at her adjustment of status hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and her 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED as follows: (1) Petitioner Lydia Rabara Swinburne (A-236-585-747) shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on her, 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 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. (Text Only Entry) (cc: ICE - California City) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

May 18, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#9

Jul 08, 2026

Preliminary Injunction

#10

Jul 09, 2026

Notice of Filing / Lodging Document

#11

Jul 10, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 7/10/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 9 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 9 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by 12:00 PM on 7/14/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 7/15/2026. This matter is not set for a hearing, though the court may schedule one if it determines it is necessary. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

Jul 10, 2026

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

#12

Jul 14, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#13

Jul 14, 2026

DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING of Pre-Deprivation Hearing filed by Sergio Albarran, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Dustin Stubbs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Warden of the California City Detention Facility. Date & Time 06/17/2026, Duration 00:17:07. File size [8.2 MB]. (Andrews, Anthony) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#14

Jul 15, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#15

Jul 16, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 7/16/2026: In Petitioner's 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Petitioner contends that the pre-deprivation bond hearing provided to her pursuant to the court's 8 Order was constitutionally deficient. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the immigration judge improperly placed the burden on Petitioner to demonstrate that she was neither a flight risk or danger to the community, placed undue weight on Petitioner's arrest for domestic violence for which charges have since been dismissed, and because Respondents did not show changed circumstances warranting Petitioner's detention. Upon review of the 9 Motion, 12 Opposition, and 14 Reply, and the [9-1] transcript of the bond hearing and immigration judge's order, the court finds Petitioner's arguments unavailing. As to the proper burden, this court has found that the government bears the burden of justifying detention where the noncitizen has previously been released upon a finding that they do not present a flight risk or threat to community safety. See Acevedo Duran v. Albarran, No. 1:26-cv-01108-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 539409, at *5 n.6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026). Here, Petitioner entered the United States as a B2 visitor and therefore has had no such release, therefore the immigration judge properly found that Petitioner bore that burden. As to the immigration judge's heavy reliance on Petitioner's arrest for domestic violence charges, despite those charges later being dropped, an immigration judge may properly consider dismissed charges as a factor in determining a noncitizen's threat to community safety. Flores-Delgado v. Lynch, No. 15-cv-01273-PHX-JAT, 2016 WL 2865872, at *7 (D. Ariz. May 17, 2016). In her [9-1] order, the immigration judge notes that charges had been dismissed, but finds the police report compelling evidence of her threat to community safety. While Petitioner argues that the immigration judge erred in not permitting Petitioner and Petitioner's husband testify regarding the veracity of the police report, the immigration judge analyzes their declarations in her order and determines that the statements made by Petitioner's husband in the police report "is the more persuasive version of events based on the evidence observed." To the extent Petitioner believes the immigration judge improperly weighed the evidence, that is a matter properly before the Board of Immigration Appeals, not this court. Loba L.M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00611-JLT-SAB, 2026 WL 710307, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026) ("Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the immigration judge's bond determination rather than the constitutionality of the process by which that determination was reached... Complaints about the conclusion the IJ reached must be presented through the normal immigration appeal process."). As to whether the government was required to show changed circumstances occurring after this court's 8 Order, that Order was predicated on Petitioner's unlawful arrest at her adjustment of status hearing, not upon a finding that her domestic violence arrest could not support her detention. Thus, that arrest can serve as the basis for Petitioner's detention despite occurring before the court's 8 order requiring her release. Accordingly, Petitioner's 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk JRW) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 16, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Aug 03, 2026

Findings and Recommendations AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings