H.J.G.G. v. Minga Wofford, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses an immigration detainee’s petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and motion for preliminary injunction. The court grants the petitioner permission to proceed under a pseudonym and recommends granting a preliminary injunction requiring the petitioner’s immediate release, based primarily on procedural due process concerns regarding re-detention after prior release from immigration custody.

Holdings

1. The factors supporting anonymity outweighed the prejudice to respondents and the public interest in disclosure, so petitioner was permitted to proceed using his initials.
2. Petitioner was likely to establish a protected liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody after DHS released him pending removal proceedings.
3. Petitioner was likely entitled to notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before re-detention, with the government required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to the community or a flight risk.
4. The requirements for a preliminary injunction were satisfied because petitioner presented serious questions and a likelihood of success on his due-process claim, likely irreparable harm, equities favoring him, and a public interest in preventing constitutional violations.
5. No security was required for the preliminary injunction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner should be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym based on the risk of persecution, harassment, and disclosure of sensitive personal information.
2. Whether petitioner was likely to succeed on a Fifth Amendment procedural-due-process claim based on his re-detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing.
3. Whether the Winter and Ninth Circuit serious-questions factors supported a preliminary injunction requiring petitioner's release.
4. Whether respondents could re-detain petitioner absent constitutional protections, including notice and a hearing at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community.
5. Whether security should be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Disposition

other