Carlos Duban Lainez Osejo v. Sergio Albarran, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a detained noncitizen’s motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent removal to a third country without notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court held that the claim was not ripe because the petitioner had not been ordered removed and had not shown that removal to a third country was imminent. The court set a briefing schedule for the habeas petition and preliminary-injunction request and denied respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to comply with local rules.

Holdings

1. Petitioner's claims concerning notice and an opportunity to be heard before removal were not ripe because he had not shown that respondents were imminently likely to remove him to a third country and he had no removal order from an immigration judge.
2. Petitioner was not entitled to a temporary restraining order because he failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits.
3. The court denied respondents' motion to dismiss without prejudice because it failed to comply with the Local Rules.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner was entitled to a temporary restraining order preventing respondents from removing him to a third country without notice and an opportunity to present evidence.
2. Whether petitioner's challenge to the procedures attendant to a possible third-country removal was ripe for adjudication absent an immigration judge's removal order.
3. Whether respondents' motion to dismiss should be considered when it failed to comply with the Local Rules.

Disposition

other