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

E.D. California

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-00235

StatusUnknown

This text of Donghai Feng v. Todd M. Lyons, et al. (Donghai Feng v. Todd M. Lyons, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donghai Feng v. Todd M. Lyons, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONGHAI FENG, No. 1:26-cv-00235-DJC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 TODD M. LYONS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On January 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF 18 No. 1.) Several days later, on January 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for 19 Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 5.) Having reviewed both filings, the Court 20 finds that Petitioner has not established a likelihood of success on the merits in his 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 22 The operative Petition in this action claims that Petitioner had been present in 23 the United States since October 2023 and argues that Petitioner must be afforded a 24 pre-detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and Petitioner’s due process 25 rights. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 17, 59–68.) This seemingly raises similar issues to those 26 discussed in prior orders issued by this Court in other cases. See Morillo v. Albarran, 27 No. 1:25-cv-01533-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 3190899 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025); see also 28 1 E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01906-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 3707140 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2 | 2025). 3 However, the Motion filed by Petitioner does not clearly raise these same 4 | issues. Inthe limited argument the Motion contains, Petitioner argues that he has 5 | been subjected to prolonged detention “solely due to administrative error,” 6 | seemingly based on the fact that Respondents records list Petitioner as being located 7 | atthe wrong address. (ECF No. 5 at 1, 4.) Petitioner provides no legal authority in 8 | support of this argument. Petitioner has not established a likelihood of success on the 9 | merits of these claims. 10 Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 5) is 11 | DENIED. Petitioner may file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction within fourteen days of 12 | this order. If no motion is filed in that time, this matter shall be referred to the 13 | assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(17). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: January 22, 2026 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONGHAI FENG, No. 1:26-cv-00235-DJC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 TODD M. LYONS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On January 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF 18 No. 1.) Several days later, on January 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for 19 Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 5.) Having reviewed both filings, the Court 20 finds that Petitioner has not established a likelihood of success on the merits in his 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 22 The operative Petition in this action claims that Petitioner had been present in 23 the United States since October 2023 and argues that Petitioner must be afforded a 24 pre-detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and Petitioner’s due process 25 rights. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 17, 59–68.) This seemingly raises similar issues to those 26 discussed in prior orders issued by this Court in other cases. See Morillo v. Albarran, 27 No. 1:25-cv-01533-DJC-AC, 2025 WL 3190899 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2025); see also 28 1 E.L.D.M. v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01906-DJC-JDP, 2025 WL 3707140 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2 | 2025). 3 However, the Motion filed by Petitioner does not clearly raise these same 4 | issues. Inthe limited argument the Motion contains, Petitioner argues that he has 5 | been subjected to prolonged detention “solely due to administrative error,” 6 | seemingly based on the fact that Respondents records list Petitioner as being located 7 | atthe wrong address. (ECF No. 5 at 1, 4.) Petitioner provides no legal authority in 8 | support of this argument. Petitioner has not established a likelihood of success on the 9 | merits of these claims. 10 Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 5) is 11 | DENIED. Petitioner may file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction within fourteen days of 12 | this order. If no motion is filed in that time, this matter shall be referred to the 13 | assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(17). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: January 22, 2026 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Donghai Feng v. Todd M. Lyons, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donghai-feng-v-todd-m-lyons-et-al-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack