Eastern District of California • 1:26-cv-08084

#1

Oct 01, 2026

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Sergio Albarran, Tonya Andrews, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella by Kawal Preet Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-13959462) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil cover sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order-habeas)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#2

Oct 01, 2026

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Kawal Preet Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed order, # 2 Memorandum Memo)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#3

Oct 01, 2026

IMMIGRATION NEW CASE DOCUMENTS (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 10/01/2026)

#4

Oct 02, 2026

DESIGNATION of COUNSEL FOR SERVICE. Added attorney Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Sergio Albarran,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Tonya Andrews,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Todd Blanche,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for Markwayne Mullin,Jonathan Williams, GOVT for David Venturella (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

#5

Oct 02, 2026

EO:The court has received and reviewed Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. No. 1, and motion for petition for temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 2 . The court intends to rule directly on the petition. It is not clear from the face of the petition, however, whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. Accordingly, under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases -- which the court applies to this Section 2241 habeas petition, as authorized by Rule 1(b) -- the court orders the following: 1. Within seven days of the date of service of this order, Respondents SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to the petition. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. A response can be made by filing (a) AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the petition. Any argument by Respondents that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE MADE in the ANSWER but must also address the merits of the claim asserted. Alternatively, a response can be made by filing (b) A MOTION TO DISMISS the petition.2. Within seven days after service of this order, Respondents also SHALL FILE any and all transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in the petition. See Rule 5(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.The transcripts or other documents shall only be filed electronically and, to the extent practicable, provided in Optical Character Recognition ("OCR") format. Such documents include, for example, Petitioner's full Form I-213, any orders of release or detention, any custody warrants or notices, any other portions of Petitioner's A-File relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the Petition, and Petitioner's criminal record to the extent one exists. Respondents shall not file a hard copy of the transcripts or other documents unless so ordered by this court.3. If Respondents file an answer to the petition, Petitioner MAY FILE a traverse within seven days of the service of Respondents' answer. If no traverse is filed, the petition and answer are deemed submitted at the expiration of the seven days.4. If Respondents file a motion to dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an opposition or statement of non-opposition within seven days of the date of service of Respondents' motion.Any reply to an opposition to the motion to dismiss SHALL be filed within seven days after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF. The motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. 5. Any motion shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the court. These dates should be considered as firm by all parties. If any party requires additional time, that party should file a motion for amendment of theschedulebefore a deadline has passed and explain in detail why the party cannot comply with thisschedule.Extensions of time will only be granted upon a showing of good cause. All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable to this order. 6. Pending the court's decision on the petition, and unless and until the court orders otherwise, the court ORDERS that Respondents shall not transfer or otherwise take petitioner out of the Eastern District of California. See F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966) (noting court's "express authority under the All Writs Act to issue such temporary injunctions as may be necessary to protect its own jurisdiction").7. Considering the briefing schedule and status quo order set forth above, Petitioner's motion for petition for temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE MICAH W.J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

Oct 02, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

#6

Oct 09, 2026

NOTICE of RELATED CASE(S) 1:26-cr-00153-JLT-SAB-1 by Sergio Albarran, Tonya Andrews, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella. (Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/09/2026)

#7

Oct 09, 2026

RESPONSE by Sergio Albarran, Tonya Andrews, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-DHS Records, # 2 Exhibit B-Criminal Records, # 3 Exhibit C-Bond Order, # 4 Exhibit D-Hearing Notices)(Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/09/2026)

#8

Oct 14, 2026

REPLY by Kawal Preet Singh re 7 Response,. (Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 10/14/2026)

#9

Oct 19, 2026

EO: Before the court are the petition, Dkt. No. 1, response, Dkt. No. 7, and reply, Dkt. No. 8 . Based on those filings, it appears that the central issues in this case are whether Petitioner's detention is lawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In their response, Respondents argue that Petitioner's current detention is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1282(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 252.2(b).Respondents may state in writing no later than October 22, 2026, their acceptance that Petitioner is currently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Otherwise, no later than October 22, 2026, Respondents are ORDERED to supplement their response by answering the following questions. Petitioner may supplement his reply no later than three days after any supplemental response is filed. 1. Under what authority was Petitioner granted a conditional permit to land--8 U.S.C. § 1282(a)(1), (2), or (3)? What evidence reflects this? 2. If Petitioner's conditional permit to land was issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1282(a)(2) or (3), what authority supports the view that 8 U.S.C. § 1282(b) authorizes Petitioner's detention? The text of 8 U.S.C. § 1282(b) appears to address the revocation of conditional permits granted under 8 U.S.C. § 1282(a)(1); it does not mention 8 U.S.C. § 1282(a)(2) or (3). 3. If Petitioner's conditional permit to land was issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1282(a)(1), and revoked under 8 U.S.C. § 1282(b), what process was used? Section 1282(a) states that a conditional landing permit is subject to revocation "in subsequent proceedings" as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1282(b). Section 1282(b), in turn, authorizes revoking the conditional permit to land, taking the crewman into custody, requiring the master or commanding officer of the vessel arrived to detain the crewman, if practicable, and removing the crewman. See Matter of Di Santillo, 18 I. & N. Dec. 407 (BIA 1983) (describing 8 U.S.C. § 1282(b) as a "narrow exception" that "governs only the alien crewman whose . . . permit is formally revoked prior to the departure of his vessel"); Hornof v. United States, No. 2:19-cv-00198-JDL, 2023 WL 5627631, at *17 (D. Me. Aug. 31, 2023) (same), aff'd, 107 F.4th 46 (1st Cir. 2024). When, if at all, was Petitioner's conditional permit to land revoked? How was it revoked? What evidence is there of the revocation? 4. If 8 U.S.C. § 1282(b) does not apply directly to Petitioner, and Respondents are instead relying on 8 C.F.R. § 252.2(b), what part of that regulation authorizes Petitioner's detention for the duration of his asylum-only proceedings? Unlike 8 C.F.R. § 252.2(a), which explicitly states that a "crewman whose landing permit is subject to revocation pursuant to [8 U.S.C. § 1282(b)] may be taken into custody" while the vessel on which the crewman arrived remains in the United States, nothing in the text of 8 C.F.R. § 252.2(b) mentions detention of a crewman during asylum-only proceedings, after their vessel has departed the United States. See Githinji v. Rokosky, No. CV-26-02341-PHX-AMM (JZB), 2026 WL 2534640, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 10, 2026) (concluding that crewman was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV-26-02341-PHX-AMM, 2026 WL 2532239 (D. Ariz. Aug. 27, 2026). 5. To the extent Respondents contend that immigration judges lack jurisdiction to consider bond for non-citizens in asylum-only proceedings, how are cases that have rejected that argument legally or factually distinguishable? See, e.g., Lazcano v. Warden/ Facility Adm'r Cal. City Immigr. Processing Ctr., No. 1:26-cv-05916-JLT-EPG, 2026 WL 2428058 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2026) (granting habeas petition and ordering bond hearing for noncitizen in asylum-only proceedings who entered the country under the Visa Waiver Program). 6. Do Respondents agree that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 does not apply here because Petitioner's asylum-only proceedings remain pending? See Olivier Barre v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-3088 JAO (VET), 2026 WL 1471898, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2026) ("Since Petitioner's asylum-only proceedings remain pending, he is not subject to a final order of removal."); cf. Bao Tai Nian v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1227,1230 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding that order denying asylum application in asylum-only proceedings is the "functional equivalent" of a final order of removal and constitutes a "final order of removal" for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)). IT IS SO ORDERED (JUDGE MICAH W. J. SMITH) (ab) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

Oct 19, 2026

Minute Order

#10

Oct 22, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by Sergio Albarran, Tonya Andrews, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella re 9 Minute Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Visa Records, # 2 Exhibit B-USCIS Referral to IJ)(Williams, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/22/2026)

#11

Oct 23, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by Kawal Preet Singh re 10 Supplement. (Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 10/23/2026)

#12

Oct 26, 2026

ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN PART signed by District Judge Micah W. J. Smith. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AB) (Entered: 10/26/2026)

#13

Oct 26, 2026

JUDGMENT dated *10/26/2026* pursuant to Dkt. No. 12 Order signed by District Judge Micah W. J. Smith on 10/26/2026. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk AB) (Entered: 10/26/2026)