G.J.E.H. v. Minga Wofford, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01953
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 G.J.E.H., No. 1:25-cv-01953-DAD-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 14 MINGA WOFFORD, et al., AND MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM 15 Respondents. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3) 16

17 18 This matter is before the court on petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order and 19 motion to proceed under pseudonym filed on December 19, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3.) On 20 December 21, 2025, the court ordered respondents to file an opposition to the pending motions no 21 later than 5:00 PM on December 23, 2025 and to address therein whether there are any facts in 22 this case which distinguish it from Ayala Cajina v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01566-DAD-AC (HC), 23 2025 WL 3251083 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), and other similar cases decided by the undersigned. 24 (Doc. No. 5.) 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 On December 23, 2025 at 1:02 PM, respondents filed their opposition to petitioner’s pending 2 motion.1 (Doc. No. 8.) Respondents concede that this case “is in the same posture as Ayala 3 Cajina[.]” (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, the court incorporates its prior reasoning in that case herein 4 and will grant petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order. 5 As to petitioner’s motion to proceed under pseudonym, petitioner argues that he is 6 currently seeking asylum and that disclosure of his identity could cause retaliation against him or 7 his family. (Doc. No. 3 at 4–5.) The court finds its prior reasoning in O.A.C.S. v. Wofford, No. 8 1:25-cv-01652-DAD-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3485221, at *5–6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) pertinent 9 in this regard and incorporates that reasoning herein. Accordingly, the court will grant 10 petitioner’s motion to proceed under pseudonym at this stage in the litigation, without prejudice 11 to respondents filing a future motion to revoke such protection. 12 For the reasons above, 13 1. Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED 14 as follows: 15 1 In their opposition, respondents request that the court consider expanding briefing schedules for 16 “any future immigration detention case[]” to five business days because of the logistical difficulties faced in responding to emergency briefing. (Doc. No. 8 at 1 n.1.) Respondents do not 17 explicitly request any relief pertinent to this action. While the court understands respondents’ position, “[f]reedom from imprisonment . . . lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] 18 Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). Moreover, “the deprivation of 19 constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994–95 (9th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up) (discussing the particular harms that emerge from 20 immigration detention, particularly in light of “subpar medical and psychiatric care in ICE detention facilities”). Additionally, respondents concede that the posture of this case is the same 21 as Ayala Cajina, 2025 WL 3251083, where the undersigned found that the petitioner had a constitutional interest in their continued release and ordered that the respondents immediately 22 release that petitioner. (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) It is unclear why respondents would require additional 23 time in the present case based on this concession. Certainly, the flood of motions for temporary restraining orders over the last thirty days or more in cases similar to this one has placed a great 24 burden on counsel and a tremendous strain on the court. However, this emergency is entirely one of respondents’ own creation in choosing to arrest and detain individuals, like petitioner here, 25 who have been in this country for years apparently abiding by all conditions of release imposed upon them by immigration officials. (See Doc. No. 2-3 at ¶¶ 2–3.) Therefore, to the extent that 26 respondents are requesting an extension to file a supplemental opposition in this action, the court 27 rejects that request. Moreover, the undersigned is inclined to continue to impose the same briefing schedule in all similar cases and to resolve such motions as promptly as possible even 28 though the other work of this court may be delayed as a result. 1 a. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from 2 respondents’ custody on the same conditions he was subject to immediately 3 prior to his detention on September 30, 2025; 4 b. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining 5 petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing 6 petitioner notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge 7 where respondents will have the burden to demonstrate that petitioner is a 8 danger to the community or a flight risk; 9 2. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint 10 proposed briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a 11 preliminary injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of 12 this order; and 13 3. Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner will not be required to post bond 14 pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. '6 Dated: _ December 23, 2025 Dal A. 2d, aryek 17 DALE A. DROZD ig UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28