Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-06764

(HC) Swing v. Blanche

Active

Case Information

Filed: August 24, 2026
Assigned to: Dena M. Coggins
Referred to: Jeremy D. Peterson
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee
Active
Last Activity: August 28, 2026
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#1
Aug 24, 2026
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Todd Blanche, Christopher Chestnut, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security by Aron Michael Swing. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13773917) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Declaration)(Damast, Sabrina) (Entered: 08/24/2026)
Main Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Aug 24, 2026
MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Aron Michael Swing. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Declaration)(Damast, Sabrina) (Entered: 08/24/2026)
Main Document: Temporary Restraining Order
#3
Aug 24, 2026
IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk LJB) (Entered: 08/24/2026)
Main Document: Immigration New Case Documents
#4
Aug 24, 2026
DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Christopher Chestnut,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin,Jonathan Yu, GOVT for U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Yu, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/24/2026)
Main Document: DESIGNATION
#5
Aug 27, 2026
MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 8/27/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Noncitizens present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, 2026 WL 2196424, at *3 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). This court has previously held that noncitizens are entitled to a post-deprivation bond hearing when they are detained by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a), 1227(a) for remaining in the U.S. after the expiration of their previously-granted immigration status (see, e.g., Dandamudi v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-03567-DC-CSK, Doc. No. 8 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2026) (finding prudential exhaustion purposes satisfied by relief sought, granting temporary restraining order, and ordering a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) where the petitioner had overstayed their H-1B status); Gutierrez Nunez v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Det. Fac., No. 1:26-cv-03932-DC-CKD, No. 8 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2026) (same for the noncitizen who had overstayed a B-2 visa), and that noncitizens are entitled to immediate release when the Government asserts no valid basis for immigration detention (see, e.g., Alvarez Maciel v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-01318-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 496948 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (finding immediate release to be the proper remedy where the government asserted detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) when only 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) provided a basis for detention); Singh v. Warden, No. 1:26-cv-06390-DC-CSK, Doc. No. 9 (Aug. 21, 2026) (finding immediate release to be the proper remedy where the government asserted detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) based upon vacated crimes)). 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 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 Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 8/28/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address: (1) Petitioner's claims as to the impact of the Deferred Enforced Departure for Hong Kong residents, and (2) whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Rodriguez Vazquez and this court's prior cases cited above. Petitioner shall file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 8/31/2026. Both parties should address whether they oppose the court ruling directly on 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: 08/27/2026)
Aug 27, 2026
Minute Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and F&R Deadlines/Hearings
#7
Aug 28, 2026
Reply to Response to Motion
Main Document: Reply to Response to Motion