Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted petitioner Jahaira Abigail Tenorio Rugama's motion for a temporary restraining order, converting it to a preliminary injunction. The court ordered her immediate release from immigration custody under her prior release conditions and required a pre-deprivation bond hearing before any re-detention. The court also waived the bond requirement and directed petitioner to address whether the habeas proceedings should be stayed pending an appeal in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
Holdings
- Section 1226, rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to a noncitizen like petitioner who is already living in the United States after parole and is not presently seeking admission.
- Petitioner demonstrated at least a serious question that her re-detention violated substantive due process because respondents had not shown that the detention served a permissible nonpunitive purpose.
- Petitioner was likely entitled to procedural protections before re-detention, including notice and a neutral pre-deprivation custody or bond hearing under § 1226(a), because her prior parole and continued compliance created a protected liberty interest.
- Petitioner satisfied the Winter factors and was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief.
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner was likely to succeed on her claim that re-detention without a legitimate nonpunitive justification violated substantive due process.
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed petitioner's detention.
- Whether petitioner had a protected liberty interest in continued release and was likely deprived of procedural due process when she was re-detained without notice or a pre-deprivation custody or bond hearing.
- Whether petitioner satisfied the Winter factors for preliminary injunctive relief.
- Whether the proceedings should be stayed pending the appeal in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (40)
- Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239 (W.D. Wash. 2025)(pending appeal; possible dispositive authority)
- Johnson v. Gill, 883 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)(followed)
- Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690, 693 (2001)(followed)
- Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, No. 25-cv-7492 RFL, 2025 WL 2741654, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025)(followed)
- Aroldo Rodriguez Diaz v. Merrick Garland, Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196-97, 1206 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 40.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.