Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-01983

#1

Dec 22, 2025

PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against Pam Bondi, Christopher Chestnut, David M. Marin, Kristi Noem by Noelvis Perez Avalos. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12697512) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Bond Packet), # 2 Exhibit B (NTA), # 3 Exhibit C (I-765 Approval Notice), # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Arroyo, Frances) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#2

Dec 23, 2025

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED; Consent or Decline due by 1/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Order re Consent) (Deputy Clerk SSA) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#3

Dec 31, 2025

MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Noelvis Perez Avalos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Natalie Renee Shepherd, # 2 Proposed Order)(Arroyo, Frances) Modified on 1/5/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 12/31/2025)

#4

Jan 05, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/5/2026: The court has reviewed Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents shall file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 5:00 PM on 1/7/2026. In their response, Respondents shall substantively address whether any provision of law or fact in this case would distinguish it from this court's decisions in Labrador-Prato v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025), Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), and other similar cases previously decided by this court, or indicate that the matter is not substantively distinguishable. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before 1/8/2026. If Petitioner has not already served a copy of the Petition and Motion by email to the US Attorney's Office at their email address (usacae.ecf2241-imm@usdoj.gov), Petitioner's Counsel shall do so by no later than 5:00 PM on 1/5/2026. 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: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

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

#5

Jan 06, 2026

OPPOSITION to 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Pam Respondents re 4 Minute Order. Attorney Lee, Justin added. (Lee, Justin) Modified on 1/7/2026 (KLY). (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#6

Jan 07, 2026

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Courtroom Deputy for District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 1/7/2026: In Respondents' 5 Opposition to Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). However, Respondents acknowledge the caselaw from this court in Labrador-Prato v. Noem et al., 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) and Selis Tinoco v. Noem, et al., 1:25-cv-01762-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025), is not substantively distinguishable. (See Doc. No. 5 at 1.) Accordingly, pursuant to the court's reasoning in Labrador-Prato and Selis Tinoco, Petitioner's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the court ORDERS the following: (1) Petitioner shall be released immediately from the Respondents' custody; (2) Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing; and (3) If the Government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 7 days' notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which Petitioner's eligibility for bond must be considered. Moreover, in light of Respondents' non-opposition to treating Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (See Doc. No. 5), and given that the standard for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is "substantially identical" to the standard for issuing a Preliminary Injunction, Stuhlbarg Intl Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court hereby ISSUES a Preliminary Injunction on the same terms. This case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk CRS) (Entered: 01/07/2026)

Jan 07, 2026

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for TRO

Jan 12, 2026

Minute Order

Apr 13, 2026

Findings and Recommendations

#10

Apr 17, 2026

Objections to Findings and Recommendations

#11

Jul 23, 2026

ORDER signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 7/23/26 ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations ; GRANTING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; The preliminary injunctive relief previously granted (ECF No. 6) is permanent; This order does no t address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal, and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of removal; and The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk JAW)

#12

Jul 23, 2026

Judgment