Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-07350

#1

Sep 11, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Todd Blanche, ICE ERO San Francisco Field Office Director, Warden Golden State Annex, Todd M Lyon, Markwayne Mullin by Tarjinder Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13865251) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Girn, Sukhveer) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#2

Sep 11, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Tarjinder Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Affidavit)(Girn, Sukhveer) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#3

Sep 11, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk MR) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#4

Sep 11, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Field Office Director,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Warden Golden State Annex,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Todd M. Lyons,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#5

Sep 14, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/14/2026: 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 to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026). Further, this court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the Petition. See e.g., Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025); Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025); 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 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 12:00 PM on 9/16/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from Rodriguez Vazquez, Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, and D.L.C. Petitioner may file a Reply by 12:00 PM on 9/17/2026. 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: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 2026

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

#7

Sep 16, 2026

OPPOSITION by Todd Blanche, Field Office Director, Warden Golden State Annex, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin to 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-DHS Records, # 2 Exhibit B-RAP Sheet, # 3 Exhibit C-EOIR Bond Records)(Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#8

Sep 18, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 9/18/2026: In Respondents' 7 Opposition to Petitioner's 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents concede that Petitioner is subject to discretionary immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), but argue that the court should deny Petitioner's Motion because he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Specifically, Respondents explain that Petitioner was provided a custody redetermination hearing on 9/4/2026, and attach the hearing's audio recording reflecting that Petitioner voluntarily accepted the Immigration Judge's offer to reschedule because Petitioner wanted more time to prepare. Respondents also argue and provide evidence showing that Petitioner was detained by ICE soon after and because of his recent arrest for driving under the influence. Where habeas relief has been found for individuals detained immediately following a DUI, this court has typically ordered relief in the form of a post-deprivation bond hearing. See, e.g., Orrego Pineda v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-05998-DC-CKD, 2026 WL 2321837 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2026). Petitioner did not file a reply addressing Respondents' assertions and evidence. This court declines to waive prudential exhaustion here, where Petitioner has demonstrated a knowledge of his ability to obtain the relief he seeks through the normal course of immigration proceedings but does not indicate why this court's intervention is needed outside of that process; waiving prudential exhaustion in such an instance may "encourage the deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme." Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that his immigration detention violates his constitutional or statutory rights, and his 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

Sep 18, 2026

Minute Order AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings