Chestnut

Malkeet S. v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 20261:26-cv-00045California1,897 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MALKEET S.,

Petitioner, No. 1:26-cv-00045-TLN-JDP

13 v. ORDER CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., 15 Respondents.

17 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Malkeet S.’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 2.) On January 9, 2026, Respondents Christopher Chestnut, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, and Sergio Albarran (“Respondents”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 7.) Based on Respondents’ designation of their opposition as one to the issuance of a TRO and preliminary injunction and because the standard for issuing a TRO is “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction,2 the Court considers whether a preliminary injunction should issue. For the reasons set forth

On January 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Based on the substance of Petitioner’s petition and the relief requested therein, the Court construed the petition as a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.