Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-04573

#1

Jun 15, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#2

Jun 15, 2026

CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by SUNIL KUMAR. (Khatri, Himanshu) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#3

Jun 15, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#4

Jun 15, 2026

Immigration New Case Documents

#5

Jun 15, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Department of Homeland Security (DHS),Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO),Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),Shelley D. Weger, GOVT for Warden Center Valley Annex (Weger, Shelley) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#6

Jun 15, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/15/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 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 6/17/2026. 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 12:00 PM on 6/18/2026. 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: 06/15/2026)

Jun 15, 2026

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

#7

Jun 17, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#8

Jun 19, 2026

TRAVERSE/REPLY by Sunil Kumar. (Khatri, Himanshu) Modified on 6/25/2026 (KS). (Entered: 06/19/2026)

#9

Jun 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/25/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, in which Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement in immigration detention. As Respondents emphasize in their 7 Opposition to that Motion, Petitioner does not challenge the legality of his immigration detention, unlike the petitioners in 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), whose motions for injunctive relief were granted based on their claims that their re-detention without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter violated due process. Here, Petitioner's due process claim is predicated on the conditions of his confinement, not whether Respondents re-detained him without due process. Petitioner's claims are therefore not cognizable in habeas actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1072 (9th Cir. 2023); see also Arauco Mendoza v. Chestnut, et al., 1:26-cv-00627-KES-SAB, Doc. No. 9 (Feb. 5, 2026) (denying motion for a temporary restraining other where the petitioner sought "immediate release based on her assertion that she has received constitutionally-deficient medical care while in civil immigration detention"). Consequently, Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his habeas claims, as is required for a temporary restraining order. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Accordingly, Petitioner's 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED, without prejudice to Petitioner filing an amended petition to assert cognizable habeas claims and filing a motion to seek preliminary injunctive relief based on those claims. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 06/25/2026)

#10

Jun 25, 2026

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#11

Jun 25, 2026

Preliminary Injunction

#12

Jun 25, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 6/25/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 10 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Amended 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 10 Amended 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 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 6/29/2026. 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 12:00 PM on 6/30/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on the Amended Petition, albeit as to Count One only, to the extent a ruling on that Count entitles Petitioner to the relief sought in the Amended 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: 06/25/2026)

Jun 25, 2026

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

Jun 25, 2026

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

#13

Jun 29, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#14

Jun 30, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#15

Jul 01, 2026

Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case

#16

Jul 01, 2026

Judgment