Ericka P.S. v. Christopher Chestnut, in his official capacity as the Warden of the California City Detention Center; et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02049
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERICKA P.S.,1

12 Petitioner, No. 1:25-cv-02049-TLN-CKD

13 14 v. ORDER CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, in his 15 official capacity as the Warden of the California City Detention Center; et al., 16 Respondents. 17

18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Ericka P.S.’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for a 19 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons 20 set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED in part. Petitioner’s request for a TRO is 21 GRANTED and Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction 22 should not issue. 23 24 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of 25 the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits petitioner’s full name, using only her first name and last initial, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: 26 Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court 27 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. The Clerk of Court 28 is directed to update the docket to reflect this change accordingly. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a citizen of Nicaragua who entered the United States on November 3, 2022, 3 with her then-20-year-old child. (ECF No. 2-1 at 3.) Petitioner fled Nicaragua after experiencing 4 surveillance, threats, and harassment for her refusal to participate in municipal elections or 5 support the government. (Id.) On December 10, 2022, Petitioner was paroled into the United 6 States pursuant to section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (Id.) On 7 November 3, 2023, Petitioner filed an application for asylum. (ECF No. 2-3 at 4.) 8 For the past three years, Petitioner lived in the community, complied with her immigration 9 supervision, and actively litigated her asylum claim. (ECF No. 2-1 at 6.) While out of custody, 10 Petitioner was charged with and convicted of a misdemeanor violation of California Vehicle Code 11 section 23103.5, for which she was ordered to pay a fine. (Id. at 4; ECF No. 2-3 at 21.) 12 Petitioner participates in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (“ISAP”) which 13 requires her to submit a photo once a month. (ECF No. 2-3 at 25.) On October 16, 2023, 14 Petitioner reported to the ISAP office in Stockton, California to retrieve a document and to 15 resolve issues she was experiencing with the ISAP application. (Id.) She had experienced 16 problems with the ISAP application before, and believed she needed to go in person to get help. 17 (Id. at 25–26.) After arriving at the ISAP office, Petitioner was informed that she was under 18 arrest for not having presented herself. (Id. at 25.) Despite Petitioner explaining that she has 19 always followed her obligations, Petitioner was detained. (Id.) Petitioner was ultimately 20 transferred to the California City Detention Center. (ECF No. 2-1 at 4.) 21 On December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging 22 her detention as violating due process and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 1.) The same day, 23 Petitioner filed the instant Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 2.) 24 II. STANDARD OF LAW 25 For a TRO to issue, courts consider whether Petitioner has established: “[1] that [she] is 26 likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that [she] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 27 preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in [her] favor, and [4] that an injunction is 28 in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Petitioner 1 must “make a showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 2 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court may weigh Petitioner’s showing on 3 each of the Winter factors using a sliding-scale approach. Id. A stronger showing on the balance 4 of the hardships may support issuing a TRO even where there are “serious questions on the merits 5 . . . so long as the [petitioner] also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that 6 the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. Simply put, if “serious questions going to the merits 7 were raised [then] the balance of hardships [must] tip[ ] sharply” in Petitioner’s favor in order to 8 succeed in a request for a TRO. Id. at 1134–35. 9 III. ANALYSIS2 10 A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 11 Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on her due process claim.3 The Fifth 12 Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits government deprivation of an individual’s life, liberty, 13 or property without due process of law. Hernandez v. Session, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017). 14 The Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the borders of the United States, 15 regardless of immigration status. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“[T]he Due 16 Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United States, including noncitizens, whether 17 their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”). These due process rights 18 extend to immigration proceedings. Id. at 693–94. 19 Courts examine procedural due process claims in two steps: the first asks whether there 20 exists a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, and the second examines the 21 procedures necessary to ensure any deprivation of that protected liberty interest accords with the 22

23 2 The Court finds Petitioner has met the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining order without notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Petitioner has submitted the requisite affidavits 24 and notified Respondents via electronic mail on December 29, 2025 that she would be filing the motion. (ECF No. 2-2.) See R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 25 2617255, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (similarly finding requirements for TRO were met 26 without notice); Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-05632-RML, 2025 WL 1853763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 4, 2025) (same). 27 3 Because Petitioner is likely to succeed on due process, the Court need not address her 28 statutory claim. 1 Constitution. See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989); 2 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972) (“Once it is determined that due process applies, 3 the question remains what process is due.”). 4 As for the first step, the Court finds Petitioner has demonstrated that she has a protectable 5 liberty interest. See Rico-Tapia v. Smith, No. CV 25-00379 SASP-KJM, 2025 WL 2950089, at 6 *8 (D. Haw. Oct. 10, 2025) (noting “[e]ven where the revocation of a person’s freedom is 7 authorized by statute, that person may retain a protected liberty interest under the Due Process 8 Clause”). “[T]he government’s decision to release an individual from custody creates ‘an implicit 9 promise,’ upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty ‘will be revoked only if [they] 10 fail[ ] to live up to the . . . conditions [of release].” Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 11 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2025) (“Pinchi”) (quoting Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482) (modifications in 12 original). “Accordingly, a noncitizen released from custody pending removal proceedings has a 13 protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody.” Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV- 14 06924-EMC, 2025 WL 2637503, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025). To determine whether an 15 individual’s conditional release rises to the level of a protected liberty interest, courts have 16 “compar[ed] the specific conditional release in the case before them with the liberty interest in 17 parole as characterized by Morrissey.” R.D.T.M., 2025 WL 2617255, at *3. 18 Here, Petitioner gained a liberty interest in her continued freedom when she was released 19 on parole on December 10, 2022. (ECF No. 2-1 at 3.) Like in Morrisey, release from 20 immigration custody created an “implied promise” that Petitioner would not be re-detained during 21 the pendency of her immigration proceedings if she abided by the terms of her release. 22 Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482. Petitioner submits that she has complied with the conditions of her 23 release and would call ISAP any time the application did not work. (ECF No. 2-1 at 6; ECF No. 24 2-3 at 26.) Petitioner’s release for the past three years further strengthens her liberty interest. As 25 this Court has previously found, as have many other courts in this district when confronted with 26 similar circumstances, Petitioner has a clear interest in her continued freedom. See, e.g., Doe v. 27 Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1093 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (noting the Government’s actions in 28 allowing petitioner to remain in the community for over five years strengthened petitioner’s 1 liberty interest). Under Morrissey, Petitioner’s prior misdemeanor conviction does not lessen her 2 liberty interest. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 481–82 (describing the liberty interests of criminal 3 parolees). 4 Petitioner states she was informed that she was under arrest for not having presented 5 herself. (ECF No. 2-3 at 25.) Petitioner refutes this accusation and maintains that she has always 6 followed up on her obligations and maintained contact with ISAP. (Id. at 25–26.) At this 7 juncture, the Court finds credible Petitioner’s belief that she was in compliance with the terms of 8 her supervision, preserving the full force of her liberty interest. See, e.g., Bernal v. Albarran, No. 9 25-CV-09772-RS, 2025 WL 3281422, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025) (finding detention of 10 asylum applicant improper under § 1226(a), even if she violated the conditions of her release, 11 because she was not a danger to society or a flight risk). Petitioner has thus shown she has a 12 protectable liberty interest. 13 As to the second step – what procedures or process is due – the Court considers three 14 factors: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an 15 erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, 16 of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including 17 the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute 18 procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). As set 19 forth below, the Court finds Petitioner has established her due process rights were likely violated. 20 First, Petitioner has a substantial private interest in remaining free from detention. As 21 discussed above, Petitioner was released from immigration detention on December 10, 2022 and 22 since then has exercised her freedom, living in community and actively litigating her asylum 23 claim outside the confines of detention. Accordingly, Petitioner has a profound private interest in 24 her return to liberty. See Manzanarez v. Bondi, No. 1:25-CV-01536-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 25 3247258, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (finding similarly). 26 Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation here is considerable given Petitioner has 27 received virtually no procedural safeguards such as a bond or custody redetermination hearing. 28 (ECF No. 2-3 at 30–33.) “Civil immigration detention, which is nonpunitive in purpose and 1 effect, is justified when a noncitizen presents a risk of flight or danger to the community.” 2 R.D.T.M., 2025 WL 2617255, at *4 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Without a bond or 3 custody hearing to determine whether Petitioner’s detention is justified, the risk that Petitioner is 4 being erroneously deprived of her liberty is high. 5 Finally, the Government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without a hearing before a 6 neutral decisionmaker is low, particularly as Petitioner has complied with her monitoring 7 requirements and is actively pursuing asylum. As this Court has previously noted, it would be 8 less of a fiscal and administrative burden for the Government to return Petitioner home to await a 9 determination on her asylum petition than to continue to detain her. See Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d 10 at 1036 (similarly noting “the cost to the government of detaining [petitioner] pending any bond 11 hearing would significantly exceed the cost of providing her with a pre-detention hearing.”). 12 On balance, the Government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without a hearing is low and 13 does not outweigh Petitioner’s substantial liberty interest or the risk of erroneous deprivation of 14 liberty. Due process requires Petitioner receive a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that 15 complies with all applicable statutes and regulations if she is to be re-detained. 16 Having found Petitioner has a protected liberty interest and that due process requires 17 Petitioner receive a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker prior to re-detention, the Court finds 18 Petitioner has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. 19 B. Irreparable Harm 20 Petitioner has also established she will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. 21 The Ninth Circuit recognizes “irreparable harms imposed on anyone subject to immigration 22 detention[.]” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 995. Such harm is present here. Petitioner has been 23 detained for over two months, is separated from her family, and risks imminent removal without 24 an opportunity to contest the basis for her detention. (ECF No. 2-1 at 8–9.) In support of her 25 motion, Petitioner also submits a declaration documenting poor conditions at the California City 26 Detention Facility. (ECF No. 2-4.) Further, “[i]t is well established that the deprivation of 27 constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 28 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). “When an 1 alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing 2 of irreparable injury is necessary.” Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 1001–02 (9th Cir. 3 2005); see also Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Deprivation of physical 4 liberty by detention constitutes irreparable harm.”). In addition to harms imposed by her 5 continued immigration detention, Petitioner has shown she is likely to succeed on the merits of 6 her constitutional claim. The Court thus finds Petitioner has demonstrated irreparable harm. 7 C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest 8 As to the final two Winter factors, “[w]hen the government is a party, the analysis of the 9 balance of the hardships and the public interest merge.” Nat’l Urban League v. Ross, 484 F. 10 Supp. 3d 802, 807 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 11 (9th Cir. 2014)). The Court finds there is no equitable reason that would tip the balance in the 12 Government’s favor, because the Government faces no hardship. The Government “cannot 13 reasonably assert that it is harmed in any legally cognizable sense by being enjoined from 14 constitutional violations.” Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Nat. Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 15 1983). Rather, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s 16 constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002. Additionally, and as noted above, “the Ninth 17 Circuit has recognized that the costs to the public of immigration detention are staggering.” Diaz 18 v. Kaiser, No. 3:25-CV-05071, 2025 WL 1676854, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2025) (internal 19 citation omitted). In sum, the last two Winter factors also weigh in Petitioner’s favor. 20 Having found Petitioner has satisfied each of the Winter factors, the Court GRANTS 21 Petitioner’s request for a TRO. (ECF No. 2.) 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1. Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED in part. 25 Petitioner’s request for a TRO is GRANTED. This Court will rule on the request for a 26 preliminary injunction following the Order to Show Cause described herein; 27 2. Respondents must IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner Ericka P.S. from custody. 28 Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on her, unless such restrictions 1 are determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. 2 3. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining 3 Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days’ notice 4 and a pre-deprivation/custody hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where the 5 Government shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 6 Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk, and Petitioner shall be allowed 7 to have her counsel present. 8 4. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not issue a 9 preliminary injunction continuing this Order. Respondents shall file responsive papers by 10 Tuesday, January 6, 2026. Petitioner may file a reply, if any, by Monday, January 12, 11 2026. The parties shall indicate in their briefing whether they waive a hearing. Fed. 12 R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3). The Court will consider any stipulation and proposed order filed by 13 the parties if they agree to a less demanding briefing schedule. 14 5. Petitioner is ORDERED to immediately serve this Temporary Restraining Order and 15 Order to Show Cause on Respondents at usacae.ecf2241-imm @usdoj.gov. Petitioner 16 shall file proof of such service no later than 9 a.m. on December 31, 2025. 17 6. Respondents are hereby notified of their right to apply to the Court for modification or 18 dissolution of the Temporary Restraining Order on two days’ notice to Petitioner. Fed. R. 19 Civ. P. 65(b)(4). 20 7. The bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 21 regularly waive security in cases like this one. See Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1015 22 (9th Cir. 2011). 23 8. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to only list Petitioner’s first name 24 and last initial. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Date: December 30, 2025 TROY L. NUNLEY 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28