Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Petitioner Harpreet S.’s motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his prolonged immigration detention without a bond or custody hearing. The court finds that Petitioner is likely to succeed on a procedural due process claim and orders his immediate release under his prior conditions. The court also enjoins re-arrest or re-detention absent specified constitutional protections and orders Respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
Holdings
- A noncitizen who was released from immigration custody subject to conditions has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody when the government re-detains the person without an intervening violation of the release conditions.
- Where a noncitizen with a protected liberty interest is re-detained after conditional release without a bond or custody-redetermination hearing, procedural due process likely requires a hearing to determine whether detention is warranted.
- Petitioner satisfied the Winter requirements for a temporary restraining order because he showed likely success on his procedural due process claim, irreparable harm from continued detention, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.
- The court found the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) were satisfied.
Questions Presented
- Whether Petitioner was likely to succeed on a procedural due process claim based on his re-detention without notice, a custody determination, or a bond hearing.
- Whether Petitioner satisfied the Winter factors for issuance of a temporary restraining order.
- Whether the court could issue an ex parte TRO under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
- Whether Respondents could be enjoined from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent notice and a pre-deprivation or custody hearing.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (20)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)(followed)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693-94 (2001)(followed)
- Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989)(followed)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481-82 (1972)(followed)
- Rico-Tapia v. Smith, No. CV 25-00379 SASP-KJM, 2025 WL 2950089, at *8 (D. Haw. Oct. 10, 2025)(followed)
- Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025)(followed)
- Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC, 2025 WL 2637503, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025)(followed)
- R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617255, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…