Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-03567

#1

May 08, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Department of Homeland Security, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Golden State Annex Warden by SRAVAN KUMAR DANDAMUDI. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13302459) (Khatri, Himanshu) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#2

May 08, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by SRAVAN KUMAR DANDAMUDI. (Khatri, Himanshu) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#3

May 08, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by SRAVAN KUMAR DANDAMUDI. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit)(Khatri, Himanshu) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#4

May 08, 2026

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

#5

May 10, 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: 05/10/2026)

#6

May 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/13/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the 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 1 Petition, with the understanding that the court will also consider any arguments made and exhibits submitted in support of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 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 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 5/15/2026. 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 5/18/2026. 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. 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: 05/13/2026)

May 13, 2026

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

#7

May 14, 2026

Dismiss

#8

May 29, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 5/29/2026: In Respondents' 7 Opposition to Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents distinguish Petitioner's claim from those cited in the court's 6 Order by emphasizing that in those cases, the petitioners had previously been released into the United States on parole, whereas here, Petitioner lawfully entered the United States under a nonimmigrant H1-B visa which was revoked prior to his detention. Accordingly, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that he is entitled to a bond hearing under that section, but that he has not yet requested such a bond hearing. Respondents further argue that the court should require Petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies by requesting a bond hearing before addressing his habeas petition. Here, however, the remedy Petitioner seeks--a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge--is precisely the process the Government claims he must exhaust before pursuing relief in this court. Thus, by ordering that Petitioner be provided a bond hearing, the court satisfies the stated purposes for requiring prudential exhaustion: (1) it enables DHS to generate a proper record and reach a proper decision; (2) it does not encourage deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme; and (3) it allows administrative review to determine whether Petitioner's detention pending removal proceedings was erroneous. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED IN PART as follows: (1) Respondents shall, within fourteen (14) days of issuance of this Order, provide Petitioner Sravan Kumar Dandamudi (A-114-667-423) with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge at which the Government shall bear the burden of justifying Petitioner's continued detention by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) Petitioner's request for immediate release is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

#9

Jul 20, 2026

Reconsideration

#10

Jul 22, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 7/22/2026: In Petitioner's 9 motion for reconsideration, which the court construes as a motion to enforce the court's 8 order, Petitioner contends that the immigration judge's [9-1] order denying Petitioner's request for release on bond was constitutionally deficient in violation of this court's order because the government "failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner's continued civil detention is necessary to protect the community or ensure his future appearance" as "the detention decision rests principally upon a single DUI conviction, dismissed or unprosecuted police contacts, adverse credibility determinations, Petitioner's revoked immigration status, and the speculative nature of his potential relief from removal." Upon review of the [9-1] order, the court does not find that the immigration judge's determination-- that Petitioner's criminal conviction and related interactions with law enforcement render Petitioner a threat to public safety--violates Petitioner's constitutional right to due process. Specifically, the immigration judge emphasized that Petitioner denied drunk driving despite pleading no contest to a charge for driving under the influence in February 2026, and that the record in that case reflected that Petitioner had a blood alcohol content level of.15. The immigration judge further emphasized that Petitioner "completely minimized his conduct and failed to disclose his other interactions with the police," which include a 2016 arrest for negligent operation of a vehicle causing personal injury, and a 2017 liquor related violation. Thus, the immigration judge "found that the Government met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was a danger and flight risk such that no bond was appropriate." To the extent Petitioner contends the evidence submitted to the immigration judge was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard, that argument is properly raised to 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."). For these reasons, Petitioner's 9 motion to enforce the court's 8 order is DENIED. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Jul 22, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Reconsideration

#11

Aug 04, 2026

Reconsideration