Gurlal S. v. Orestes Cruz, Field Office Director of the San Francisco Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Warden of Golden State Annex Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 9, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GURLAL S., No. 1:26-cv-00070-KES-SAB (HC) 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11 ORESTES CRUZ, Field Office Director of Doc. 2 the San Francisco Field Office of U.S. 12 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Warden of Golden State Annex Detention 13 Facility, 14 Respondents.1 15 16 Before the Court is petitioner Gurlal S.’s motion for temporary restraining order.2 Doc. 2. 17 The Court has addressed the legal issues raised by petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining 18

19 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. 20 Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004). Petitioner is currently detained at Golden State Annex Detention Facility, see Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 5, 18. The Court “may join Petitioner’s custodian on its own 21 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. 22 Moschorak, 989 F.2d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[D]ismissal is not the appropriate remedy 23 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 24 Warden of Golden State Annex Detention Facility as a respondent in this action.

25 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 26 first name and last initial, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: Privacy 27 Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), 28 https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. 1 order in prior cases. See e.g., Sharan S. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01427-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 2 WL 3167826 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025); Guzman v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01015-KES-SKO 3 (HC), 2025 WL 2617256 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025). 4 The Court ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal 5 issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Court’s prior orders in Sharan S. v. 6 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01427-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3167826 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025), 7 and Guzman v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-01015-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617256 (E.D. Cal. 8 Sept. 9, 2025), and that would justify denying the motion. Doc. 5. The Court also ordered 9 respondents to state their position on whether the motion should be converted to a motion for 10 preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing. Id. Respondents did not identify any 11 factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the cases cited in the Court’s minute 12 order, and they also did not object to converting the motion or request a hearing. See Doc. 9. 13 As respondents have not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that render it 14 distinguishable from the Court’s prior decisions in Sharan S. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01427- 15 KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3167826 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025), and Guzman v. Andrews, No. 16 1:25-CV-01015-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617256 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025), and for the 17 reasons stated in those prior orders, petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order is 18 converted to a motion for a preliminary injunction and is GRANTED. Respondents are 19 ORDERED to release petitioner immediately. Respondents are ENJOINED AND 20 RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing 21 evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a 22 flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified. 23 The bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 24 regularly waive security in cases like this one. See Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 25 2011); Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-CV-05632-RMI (RFL), 2025 WL 1853763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 26 4, 2025). 27 /// 28 /// 1 This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings including 2 | the preparation of findings and recommendations on the petition or other appropriate action. 3 4 | ISSO ORDERED. _ 5 Dated: _ January 9, 2026 4h ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28