Donghai Feng v. Todd M. Lyons, et al.

Opinion

DONGHAI FENG, No. 1:26-cv-00235-DJC Petitioner, v. ORDER TODD M. LYONS, et al., Respondents. On January 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Several days later, on January 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 5.) Having reviewed both filings, the Court finds that Petitioner has not established a likelihood of success on the merits in his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The operative Petition in this action claims that Petitioner had been present in the United States since October 2023 and argues that Petitioner must be afforded a pre-detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and Petitioner’s due process rights. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 17, 59–68.) This seemingly raises similar issues to those discussed in prior orders issued by this Court in other cases. See Morillo v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01533-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 3190899 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025); see also E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01906-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 3707140 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025). However, the Motion filed by Petitioner does not clearly raise these same issues. Inthe limited argument the Motion contains, Petitioner argues that he has been subjected to prolonged detention “solely due to administrative error,” seemingly based on the fact that Respondents records list Petitioner as being located atthe wrong address. (ECF No. 5 at 1, 4.) Petitioner provides no legal authority in support of this argument. Petitioner has not established a likelihood of success on the merits of these claims. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 5) is DENIED. Petitioner may file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction within fourteen days of this order. If no motion is filed in that time, this matter shall be referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(17). Dated: January 22, 2026 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE