Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06204

#1

Aug 05, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Syed Saqlain Badshah. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13688907) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Hussain, Sajjad) Modified on 8/14/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#2

Aug 05, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Syed Saqlain Badshah. (Hussain, Sajjad) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#3

Aug 05, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk LJB) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#4

Aug 05, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT added for All Respondents. (Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 8/14/2026 (KS). (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#5

Aug 05, 2026

(DISREGARD; REFER TO AMENDED FILING AT DOC. NO. 6) MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/5/2026: The court has considered Respondents' 15 request for an extension of time and finds a brief extension appropriate. Accordingly, the 15 request is GRANTED as follows: Respondents shall file a response to the pending 13 motion as previously 14 ordered by no later than 8/10/2026. Petitioner's deadline to file a reply, if any, is also extended to 8/21/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk RAA) (Docket Text Modified on 8/6/2026 by CRS: Disregard Language Added.) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

Aug 05, 2026

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

#6

Aug 06, 2026

AMENDED MINUTE ORDER (Amending Doc. No. 5) issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/6/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 8/7/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 8/10/2026. 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: 08/06/2026)

#7

Aug 06, 2026

OPPOSITION to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Respondents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Yu, Jonathan) Modified on 8/7/2026 (HAH). (Entered: 08/06/2026)

Aug 06, 2026

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

#8

Aug 13, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/13/2026: In both Petitioner's 1 Habeas Petition and Petitioner's [7-1] Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, it is alleged that upon Petitioner's reentry into the United States he was served with a Form I-871 Reinstatement Order. Noncitizens subject to a reinstated order of removal are not eligible for review or relief from that order and are subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). See Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 534-35 (2021) ("[R]einstated removal orders are administratively final" because the noncitizen "had the opportunity to seek review in the [Board of Immigration Appeals] after the initial removal order was entered, and §1231(a)(5) explicitly prohibits them from seeking review or relief from the order after it is reinstated following unlawful reentry."). Despite this, Respondents contend that Petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) rather than § 1231(a). Accordingly, Respondents shall, on or before 12:00 PM on 8/17/2026, file a supplemental brief addressing: (1) whether Petitioner is subject to a reinstated order of removal; and (2) if Petitioner is subject to a reinstated order of removal, why his detention is not governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). Petitioner may file a response to Respondents' supplemental brief on or before 12:00 PM on 8/18/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

Aug 13, 2026

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

#9

Aug 16, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin re 8 Minute Order,,,,,,, Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,. (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/16/2026)

#10

Aug 17, 2026

RESPONSE by Syed Saqlain Badshah to 9 Supplement. (Hussain, Sajjad) (Entered: 08/17/2026)

#11

Aug 19, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/19/2026: In Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Petitioner contends that his immigration detention of over six months has grown unconstitutionally prolonged because he has not been afforded a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, and because his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. In their 7 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention as an "applicant for admission" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents emphasize that, unlike the category of detainees who the Ninth Circuit held were subject to discretionary detention in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), Petitioner was detained at the border and not in the interior of the United States. In his 10 Supplemental Response Petitioner does not dispute that he is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), but argues that his detention has grown unconstitutionally prolonged, and that absent this court's order there are no regulatory or statutory procedures by which he may argue for his release from custody. This court has previously found that, absent extenuating circumstances, noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) are constitutionally entitled to a bond hearing when their detention becomes prolonged and does not appear to have an endpoint in the foreseeable future. See, e.g., Nasar v. Warden of Cal. City Det. Ctr., No. 2:26-cv-00433-DC-AC, 2026 WL 731160, at *2-6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2026) (granting bond hearing to noncitizen mandatorily detained for fourteen months); M.M. v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-00813-DC-AC, 2026 WL 604200, at *3-5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2026) (same as to noncitizen detained for sixteen months). Here, Petitioner has been detained for almost seven months, has not received an individualized bond hearing, and Respondents do not provide any reason to believe that Petitioner is a flight risk or threat to community safety. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Nasar and M.M., Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. Respondents shall, within fourteen (14) days, provide Petitioner Syed Saqlain Badshah (A-221-393-040) 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. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 08/19/2026)

Aug 19, 2026

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

#12

Aug 26, 2026

MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 08/26/2026: On 8/19/2026, the court granted petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order, ordered that petitioner be provided a bond hearing within fourteen days, and referred the matter to the magistrate court for further proceedings. ECF No. 11 . The parties are hereby ordered to file status reports by 9/9/2026 to update the court on the status of the bond hearing and petitioner's detention, notify the court of their plans for how to proceed with litigation, and suggest a proposed schedule for further briefing on the merits of the petition. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Text Only Entry). (Deputy Clerk NAC) (Entered: 08/26/2026)

Aug 26, 2026

Minute Order

#13

Sep 08, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#14

Sep 09, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Syed Saqlain Badshah. (Hussain, Sajjad) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#15

Sep 09, 2026

MOTION to ENFORCE JUDGMENT by Syed Saqlain Badshah. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Hussain, Sajjad) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#16

Sep 11, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/11/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 15 Motion. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition by 12:00 PM on 9/15/2026. Petitioner may file a Reply by 9/16/2026. 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: 09/11/2026)

Sep 11, 2026

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

#19

Sep 15, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#20

Sep 15, 2026

Reply to Response to Motion

#21

Sep 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/18/2026: In Petitioner's 15 Motion to Enforce the court's 11 Order, Petitioner contends that the bond hearing provided to him did not comply with the Order because the "record presented at the bond hearing demonstrates that the hearing did not provide the process contemplated by this Court's Order." However, in the digital recording of the bond hearing, the immigration judge confirms that Respondents bear the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner's continued detention was justified, noted that Petitioner has "some positive factors such as the existence of a sponsor and a viable pathway to relief through his I-589" but found that due to "his history of immigration violations" including entering the United States without inspection in the last 18 months, exiting, then reentering without inspection, Petitioner "had shown a disregard of immigration laws and the immigration court" such that Petitioner "would not follow the instruction of the immigration court." Thus, the record does not reveal any "red flags" that would indicate that the immigration judge applied the wrong standard of proof. See Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024). To the extent Petitioner contends the evidence considered by the immigration judge was insufficient to meet the government's burden, that is an argument to be 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."). Accordingly, Petitioner's 15 Motion to Enforce is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk MCF) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 18, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment