Bing L. v. Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Executive Office for Immigration Review; Warden of Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center

Opinion

BING L., No. 1:26-cv-00238-KES-SAB (HC) Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of Doc. 7 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; Warden of Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center, Respondents.1

1 When a habeas petitioner challenges his present physical confinement, “the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004). Petitioner is currently detained at Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center. The Court “may join Petitioner’s custodian on its own initiative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a).” Jones v. Schwarzennegger, No. C07-4323 JSW (PR), 2008 WL 94771, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008); see also Silveyra v. Moschorak, 989 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[D]ismissal is not the appropriate remedy where the party is subject to the jurisdiction of the district court. Instead, district courts may order the joinder of such parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).”). The Court therefore joins the Warden of Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center as a respondent in this action. Before the Court is petitioner Bing L.’s motion for temporary restraining order.2 Doc. 7. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the motion for temporary restraining order. See e.g., Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); Lepe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01163-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2716910 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2025). The Court ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders in Crispin M. C. v. Noem and Lepe v. Andrews, and that would justify denying the motion. Doc. 8. The Court also ordered respondents to state their position on whether the motion should be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing. Id. Respondents do not identify any factual or legal issues in this case distinguishing it from the Court’s prior decisions, and they do not make any arguments that the Court has not previously considered. See Doc. 11. Respondents do not object to converting the motion and do not request a hearing. See id. at 1 n.1. As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026), and Lepe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01163-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2716910 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2025), the motion for temporary restraining order is converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders. The Court ORDERS respondents to release petitioner immediately. If the government seeks to re-detain petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days’ notice to petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. The security bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts

2 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits petitioner’s full name, using only his first name and last initial, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. regularly waive security in cases like this, and the government has not established a need to impose a security bond. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including the preparation of findings and recommendations on the petition for writ of habeas corpus or other appropriate action. ITIS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ January 26, 2026 4h | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1]