Angeles Shaquira Gonzalez Lopez v. Christopher Chestnut; Sergio Albarran; Todd Lyons; Kristi Noem; and Pamela Bondi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANGELES SHAQUIRA GONZALEZ No. 1:26-cv-01747-KES-SKO (HC) LOPEZ, 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 11 Doc. 4 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT; SERGIO 12 ALBARRAN; TODD LYONS; KRISTI NOEM; and PAMELA BONDI, 13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is petitioner Angeles Shaquira Gonzalez Lopez’s motion for temporary 16 restraining order. Doc. 4. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the 17 motion for temporary restraining order. See e.g., Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487- 18 KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV- 19 01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 20 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025). 21 The Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for temporary restraining order and 22 ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case 23 that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the motion. 24 Doc. 5. The Court also ordered respondents to state their position on whether the motion should 25 be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing. Id. 26 Respondents state that they “do not have legal arguments to distinguish this case from prior 27 orders issued by the Court, nor do [they] find material factual differences between this case and 28 1 those identified by the Court.” See Doc. 6. While respondents oppose the motion, they do not 2 raise any new arguments.1 See id.2 They also do not object to converting the motion. See id.3 3 As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 4 factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Court’s prior decisions in 5 Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 6 2026), J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. 7 Oct. 27, 2025), and Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025), the motion for 8 temporary restraining order is converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED, 9 for the reasons stated in those prior orders. 10 The Court ORDERS that respondents release petitioner immediately.4 If the government 11 1 Two courts of appeal have addressed whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens 12 who have resided in the United States without having been admitted. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that government 13 was not likely to prevail on the merits that petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 14 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (finding petitioners were subject to mandatory detention under 15 § 1225(b)(2)(A)). Respondents cite to the Buenrostro-Mendez decision. Doc. 6 at 2–3. The Court finds the analysis in Castañon-Nava and in the dissent in Buenrostro-Mendez to be more 16 persuasive on the statutory interpretation issue. In any event, the Buenrostro-Mendez decision did not address the due process claim at issue in the present case. 17 2 Respondents also request, in the alternative, that the Court hold this case in abeyance pending 18 the appeals in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.), and Carballo v. Andrews, No. 1:25- 19 CV00978-KES-EPG (HC), 2025 WL 2381464 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025). See Doc. 6 at 4–5. Given the nature of the relief sought by petitioner, the court declines to defer a ruling on 20 petitioner’s motion for preliminary relief. As this matter is being referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, the magistrate judge may consider whether to hold 21 further proceedings on the petition in abeyance.

22 3 Respondents also filed a motion to dismiss certain respondents. Doc. 7. The Court will refer 23 that motion to the assigned magistrate judge.

24 4 Respondents argue that the appropriate remedy should be a post-deprivation § 1226(a) bond hearing, rather than immediate release. Doc. 6 at 4. But respondents have taken the position that 25 petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) and have not attempted to justify petitioner’s detention under § 1226(a). See id. The Court declines to sua sponte construe 26 petitioner’s detention as one arising under § 1226(a). See Cartagena Hueso v. Soto, No. 26-1455 27 (ZNQ), 2026 WL 539271, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2026) (“[The Court declines to sua sponte construing [petitioner’s] detention as one under § 1226 . . . [because the] Government’s handling 28 of Petitioner’s detention is emblematic of its approach to immigration enforcement in this state. 1 | seeks to re-detain petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days’ notice to petitioner and 2 | must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and 3 | its implementing regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered.” 4 The security bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 5 | regularly waive security in cases like this, and the government has not established a need to 6 || impose a security bond. 7 This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including 8 | the preparation of findings and recommendations on the petition for writ of habeas corpus and 9 | motion to dismiss. 10 11 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _ 12 Dated: _ March 12, 2026 | | 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | On the merits, its detentions are illegal. The Government knows this. Its reliance on § 1225 has been roundly rejected [by federal courts].”). > This Order does not address the circumstances in which respondents may detain petitioner in the 28 | event he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal.