Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Jose Ivar Pineda Campos’s motion for a preliminary injunction in his habeas action concerning immigration detention. The court enjoined the respondents from detaining him without a prior hearing before a neutral decisionmaker and from transferring him out of the district without prior court approval.
Holdings
- Pineda Campos was entitled to a preliminary injunction because he raised a serious legal question and demonstrated a likelihood of success on whether he could be detained under the circumstances presented, while also making a sufficient showing on the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.
- Respondents were enjoined from detaining Pineda Campos without a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
- Respondents were enjoined from transferring Pineda Campos outside the district without prior court approval.
- Pineda Campos was not required to give security under Rule 65(c) because there was no realistic likelihood of harm to respondents from enjoining their conduct.
Questions Presented
- Whether Pineda Campos was entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
- Whether the court should enjoin respondents from transferring Pineda Campos outside the district without prior court approval.
- Whether security was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Trump, No. 25-CV-03070-JD, 2025 WL 1755442, at *8 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2025)(followed)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Caicedo Hinestroza et al. v. Kaiser et al., 25-cv-07559-JD, Dkt. No. 8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025)(followed)
- Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919-20 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…