Lizbeth Morelis Ibanez Daza v. Sergio Albarran, et al.

Ibanez Daza v. Albarran · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · November 25, 2025 · No. 25-cv-10214-RFL

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order concerning the immigration detention of Lizbeth Morelis Ibanez Daza. The court ordered her immediate release and enjoined re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. The order also set a show-cause hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should issue and dispensed with a bond.

Holdings

  1. The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) were satisfied because petitioner submitted specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury could occur before respondents could be heard and demonstrated the required efforts to provide notice.
  2. Petitioner demonstrated serious questions that due process requires notice and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker before she may be taken back into immigration custody, with an individualized determination whether detention is necessary because she poses a flight risk or danger to public safety.
  3. Petitioner satisfied the requirements for temporary injunctive relief because she showed serious questions on the merits, likely irreparable injury from unconstitutional detention, and that the balance of equities and public interest sharply favored relief.
  4. The court exercised its discretion to dispense with security under Rule 65(c).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether petitioner was entitled to an ex parte temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1).
  2. Whether petitioner demonstrated serious questions that her re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
  3. Whether the balance of equities, public interest, and irreparable-harm factors supported immediate release and an injunction against re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing.
  4. Whether the court should require security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (31)

  • Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 22 (2008)(applied)
  • Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014)(applied)
  • Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)(applied)
  • E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 779 (9th Cir. 2019)(applied)
  • Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)(applied)
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001)(applied)
  • Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)(applied)
  • Ortiz Vargas v. Jennings, No. 20-cv-05785, 2020 WL 5074312, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2020)(followed)
  • Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 969-70 (N.D. Cal. 2019)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 31.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…