(HC) Martin v. Phillips

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00687
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUMITRU MARTIN, No. 2:25-cv-00687-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ARINDA PHILLIPS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Dumitru Martin’s Motion for Temporary 19 Restraining Order (Mot. TRO (ECF No. 6.)). Petitioner was released to a halfway house 20 and then to home confinement by the Bureau of Prisons due to having received 21 sufficient Good Conduct Time and First Step Act Earned Time Credits (FSA Credits) 22 while he served his sentence. (Id. at 3–4.) Several months later, despite having 23 complied with all the terms of his release plan, he was arrested and placed back in 24 custody. (See id. at 4.) Although he received no written documentation regarding the 25 reason why, it appears this was due to an active immigration detainer against him. 26 (Id.) Petitioner now seeks release from custody and return to home confinement 27 pending a decision on his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 18 U.S.C. § 2241. 28 (ECF No. 1.) Respondents argue that the Motion should be denied because this Court 1 lacks jurisdiction and statutory authority. (See Martin Opp’n (ECF No. 6) at 1.) For the 2 reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Temporary Restraining 3 Order and orders Mr. Martin transferred back into prerelease custody. 4 I. Background 5 A. Statutory Background 6 This Motion arises in the context of the First Step Act. The Act was signed into 7 law in December 2018 and amended 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621, 3624, and 3632. First Step 8 Act, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). These amendments provide that the 9 Bureau of Prisons give prisoners the chance to receive “earned time credits” for 10 participating in “recidivism reduction programs.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(h), 3632(a); 11 see also Bottinelli v. Salazar, 929 F.3d 1196, 1197–98 (9th Cir. 2019). Section 3632 12 provides that a prisoner may receive earned time credits, explains how the credits are 13 to be applied, and states what disqualifies a prisoner from receiving such credits. 14 Principally at issue in this case is section 3632(d)(4)(C), which reads:

15 Time credits earned under this paragraph by prisoners who 16 successfully participate in recidivism reduction programs or productive activities shall be applied toward time in 17 prerelease custody or supervised release. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall transfer eligible prisoners, as determined 18 under section 3624(g), into prerelease custody or supervised 19 release. 20 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). 21 B. Factual Background 22 Petitioner Dumitru Martin brings a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 23 seeking immediate release from custody and return to home confinement pending a 24 decision on his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 18 U.S.C. § 2241. 25 Alternatively, he seeks release pending resolution of his Habeas Petition. 26 In 2017, Petitioner was sentenced to 156 months in prison. (Mot. TRO at 3.) 27 While in prison, Petitioner completed programming, received no disciplinary write- 28 ups, and paid off his entire financial obligation. (Id.) As a result, he earned both Good 1 Conduct Time and FSA Credits. (Id.) In June 2024, the BOP determined that 2 Petitioner had enough credits to be eligible for prerelease custody and transferred 3 him first to a halfway house, and in August 2024, to home confinement. (Id. at 3–4.) 4 Petitioner has resided in Sacramento, California while on home confinement, and has 5 had no disciplinary violations during this period. (Id. at 4.) 6 On February 18, 2025, Petitioner was arrested after reporting as directed and 7 returned to custody at the Sacramento County Jail. (Id.) Petitioner remains 8 incarcerated.1 While Petitioner was not given any written documentation regarding 9 the decision to return him to custody, he was informed that the decision was based on 10 a recent BOP policy that prohibits referrals and transfers to residential reentry centers 11 and home confinement for BOP prisoners with unresolved immigration detainers. (Id. 12 at 4.) Petitioner has an unresolved immigration detainer.2 (Id.) Respondents oppose 13 the instant Motion, arguing primarily that this Court lacks jurisdiction and statutory 14 authority over the matter.3 15 II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 16 Respondents first argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the underlying 17 habeas petition because where Petitioner serves his time on prerelease custody is not 18 within the “core of habeas.” (Martin Opp’n at 3-4.) “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is 19 an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody.” Preiser v. 20 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). However, where success on a petitioner’s claim 21 “would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement” 22 then it “does not fall within ‘the core of habeas corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 23 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). While the federal courts do not have

24 1 In Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that Petitioner was recently transferred 25 from Sacramento County Jail and is “enroute” to a federal prison. (Martin Reply (ECF No. 13) at 2 n.1.) 26 2 Petitioner is a Romanian citizen who is lawfully in the United States. However, due to his federal criminal case, BOP paperwork indicates that he has an active immigration detainer. (Mot. TRO at 4.) 27 3 The Court notes that the issues presented in this application are similar to those in the related case, 28 Kuzmenko v. Phillips et al., 2:25-cv-00663-DJC-AC. 1 jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions about individuals made by BOP, see 2 Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit has 3 emphasized repeatedly that “courts have jurisdiction over habeas petitions alleging 4 ‘that BOP action is contrary to established federal law, violates the United States 5 Constitution, or exceeds its statutory authority.’” Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 970– 6 74 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1228). 7 Petitioner’s claim is that the BOP violated the First Step Act by denying him 8 from applying his earned FSA Credits based on his unresolved immigration detainer. 9 (See Mot. TRO at 6–9.) Respondents contend that the success of Petitioner’s claim 10 does not change his duration in confinement and that his placement while serving his 11 term is squarely within the BOP’s discretion. (Martin Opp’n at 3–4.) Respondents rely 12 on the Supreme Court’s holding in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), to argue 13 that removing Petitioner from home confinement and returning him to prison does 14 not deprive him of any liberty interest because confinement in prison is not atypical of 15 what inmates endure as part of a custodial sentence. 16 However, Sandin v. Conner involved the difference in placing a prisoner in 17 disciplinary segregated confinement versus remaining in the general population. Id. 18 at 486. In making its determination, the Court explained that segregated confinement 19 did “not present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of” the prisoner’s 20 indeterminate sentence. Id. at 485. Rather, disciplinary segregation, with insignificant 21 exceptions, did not exceed similar, but discretionary, confinement in either duration 22 or degree of restriction. Id. at 486. The Court acknowledges that although 23 Petitioner’s claim here may not ultimately change the length of his custody, success on 24 his argument would lead to his “earlier release from confinement.” Unlike the 25 differences in confinement outlined in Sandin, the difference between home 26 confinement and detention in a custodial setting is undoubtedly significant. 27 More relevant is the Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 28 (1997). In that case, the Court reviewed a habeas petition after the respondent was 1 placed on a preparole program and spent five months outside the penitentiary, but 2 was ultimately denied parole and sent back into custody without the procedural 3 protections outlined in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). Harper, 520 U.S. at 4 144–45. The Supreme Court found that preparole, as it existed at the time of 5 respondent’s release, was sufficiently equivalent to parole so as to warrant similar due 6 process protections. Id. at 147. Importantly, the Court noted that although 7 respondent was not free from limitations of his personal liberty, he was released from 8 prison before the expiration of his sentence, kept his own residence, maintained a job, 9 and “relied on at least an implicit promise that [preparole] will be revoked only if he 10 fails to live up to the [preparole] conditions.” Id. at 147–48. This Court finds it 11 significant that (1) the Supreme Court considered the habeas petition in a matter 12 where the ultimate duration of the custody appeared to remain the same, but success 13 on the claim could result in an earlier release from incarceration, and (2) that the 14 Supreme Court endorsed the view that preparole is “very different from that of 15 confinement in a prison.” Id. at 147. Here, it is more likely that home confinement, 16 which grants Petitioner many of the freedoms outlined in Young, resembles a 17 preparole situation more so than one of an institutional setting. Thus, relief from 18 incarceration would constitute an immediate or earlier relief from confinement and 19 gives this Court subject matter jurisdiction. 20 To be sure, the Director of BOP is granted some discretion in how to effectuate 21 section 3632(d)(4)(C). For instance, he or she may require that prerelease custody be 22 served in a residential reentry center or in home confinement. That decision arguably 23 implicates section 3621, and in any event is not one that can be reviewed by this 24 Court. Similarly, as discussed below, the Director may decide whether to apply the 25 FSA credits to prerelease custody or supervised release, a discretionary decision that 26 may also not be reviewed by this Court. Many of the cases cited by Respondent in 27 support of his argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction involve these discretionary 28 decisions, which are distinguishable from this case. For example, the CARES Act 1 allowed the BOP Director to “lengthen the maximum amount of time for which the 2 Director is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement, under the first 3 sentence of section 3624(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as the Director deems 4 appropriate.” CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-135, § 12003(b)(2) (2020) (emphasis 5 added). Given the clear, discretionary language, courts have routinely concluded they 6 lacked jurisdiction to review home confinement eligibility under the CARES Act. See 7 Diaz-Lozano v. B.M. Trate, No. 1:22-cv-01403 JLT SKO, 2022 WL 17417716, at *1 (E.D. 8 Cal. Dec. 5, 2022) (collecting cases) (listing cases finding federal habeas petitions 9 cannot be based on the CARES Act). 10 The Court recognizes that to some extent, the issue of subject matter 11 jurisdiction raises and falls with the interpretation of the FSA. However, the core of 12 Petitioner’s claim centers on the BOP exceeding its statutory authority as it pertains to 13 FSA credit application, rather than an individualized, discretionary decision. Thus, the 14 Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Martinez v. Gutierrez, No. 4:22- 15 cv-00505 RM, 2023 WL 6466490, at *4 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2023), report and 16 recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 6464850 (D. Ariz. Oct. 4, 2023)(finding that 17 jurisdiction existed where petitioner challenged BOP policy as contrary to section 18 3632(d)); Ramirez v. Phillips, No. 2:23-cv-02911 KJM JDP, 2023 WL 8878993, at *2 19 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2023) (finding that petitioner’s claim that BOP rescinded his FSA 20 credits in violation of federal law falls within the core of habeas corpus because 21 success would necessarily lead to a speedier release). 22 III. Exhaustion of Remedies 23 A habeas petitioner must ordinarily exhaust available administrative remedies 24 before filing a petition under section 2241, and a petition may properly be dismissed 25 for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies made available by the BOP. See 26 Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). However, courts have discretion 27 to waive the exhaustion requirement when administrative remedies are inadequate or 28 their exercise would be futile, or irreparable injury would result without immediate 1 judicial intervention. See Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994,1000 (9th Cir. 2004). A key 2 consideration in exercising this discretion is whether “relaxation of the requirement 3 would encourage deliberate bypass of the administrative scheme.” Id. at 1000 4 (citation and quotation omitted). 5 Respondent argues that administrative exhaustion is required because there is 6 no final order or record from BOP to review. However, Respondents provide no 7 indication of what further information BOP would provide in such an order; indeed, 8 the facts appear undisputed, and BOP’s reasoning. Moreover, Petitioner argues that 9 administrative exhaustion would be futile because BOP’s arrest was allegedly due to 10 its national policy and because a showing of irreparable harm exists here. Because 11 the Court finds that irreparable harm exists here, the Court waives the exhaustion 12 requirement. 13 IV. Temporary Restraining Order 14 A. Legal Standard 15 A temporary restraining order may be issued upon a showing “that immediate 16 and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 17 party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). In determining whether 18 to issue a temporary restraining order, courts apply the factors that guide the 19 evaluation of a request for preliminary injunctive relief: (1) likelihood of success on the 20 merits; (2) irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief (3) the balance of 21 equities and (4) the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 22 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 23 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the analysis for temporary restraining orders 24 and preliminary injunctions is “substantially identical”). 25 There is an even higher burden where the type of injunction sought is a 26 “mandatory injunction.” See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) 27 (explaining that the plaintiff faced a “doubly demanding” burden for a mandatory 28 injunction). To obtain a mandatory injunction, a plaintiff must show that “the law and 1 facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. (emphasis 2 in original). Because a mandatory injunction requires that a responsible party take an 3 action, they are “not granted unless extreme or very serious damage will result. . . .” 4 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 878–79) (9th Cir. 5 2009). The Court finds that this heightened burden is met in this case. 6 B. Discussion 7 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 8 The first Winter factor, the likelihood of success on the merits, “is a threshold 9 inquiry and is the most important factor.” Baird v. Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 10 2023) (quoting Env’t Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Carlson, 968 F.3d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 2020)). 11 Petitioner argues that the BOP violated the FSA by denying him the ability to apply his 12 FSA Credits toward prerelease custody based on his unresolved immigration 13 detainer. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the language of section 3632(d)(4)(C) 14 imposes a mandatory duty on the BOP to allow eligible prisoners to apply their FSA 15 Credits. Respondent does not deny that Petitioner was reincarcerated because of the 16 immigration detainer, but disputes that section 3632(d)(4)(C) imposes any mandatory 17 duty. 18 The Court now turns to the text of section 3632(d)(4)(C), which reads: 19 Time credits earned under this paragraph by prisoners who 20 successfully participate in recidivism reduction programs or 21 productive activities shall be applied toward time in prerelease custody or supervised release. The Director of the Bureau 22 of Prisons shall transfer eligible prisoners, as determined under section 3624(g), into prerelease custody or supervised release. 23

24 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C) (emphasis added). Other courts in the Ninth Circuit, 25 including a court in this District, have interpreted this language to mean that the BOP 26 does not have the discretion to exclude an eligible prisoner from having his earned 27 time credits applied under the FSA, because the FSA language in 18 U.S.C. 28 1 § 3632(d)(4)(C) is mandatory. Ramirez, 2023 WL 8878993, at *4 (agreeing with other 2 courts in finding that the language in section 3632(d)(4)(C) is mandatory); see Jones v. 3 Engleman, No. 2:22-cv-05292 MGS GJS , 2022 WL 6563744, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 4 2022), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, 2022 WL 5 6445565, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2022) (adopting in relevant part the statutory analysis 6 in the findings and recommendations finding that section 3632(d)(4)(C) is mandatory); 7 see also Woodley v. Warden, USP Leavenworth, No. 5:24-cv-03053 JWL, 2024 WL 8 2260904, at *3 (D. Kan. May 15, 2024) (stating that a plain reading of the section 9 3632(d)(4)(D) requires BOP to transfer a prisoner to prerelease custody or supervised 10 release if the prisoner is “eligible” as pursuant to subsection 3624(g)). Under this 11 reading, it appears to the Court that Petitioner had a right to apply his earned credits 12 to a non-prison setting, although the form of custody (home confinement versus a 13 residential reentry center) would be up to the BOP’s discretion. 14 Respondents argue that even though the section uses the word “shall”, section 15 3632(d)(4)(C) does not eliminate the BOP’s discretion over the use of prerelease 16 custody under section 3621(b). In making this claim, Respondents contend that 17 section 3632(d)(4)(C) incorporates section 3624(g), titled “prerelease custody or 18 supervised release for risk and needs assessment system participants”, by reference. 19 The Court does not disagree with this reading. Respondents further argue that 20 section 3624(g)(10) in turn references a portion of section 3624(c) that discusses 21 prerelease time limits and also a provision expressly incorporating and preserving 22 BOP’s discretion under section 3621(b). Respondent then argues that this provision 23 regarding BOP’s discretion also applies to section 3632(d)(4)(C). The Court finds that 24 this argument is flawed. 25 Section 3624(g)(10) reads: “[t]he time limits under subsections (b) and (c) shall 26 not apply to prerelease custody under this subsection.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(10). 27 Subsection (c), at issue here and which predates the FSA, limits prerelease custody to 28 twelve months. Subsection (g)(10)’s exclusion of this time limit makes sense given that 1 subsection (c) would have otherwise created a conflict with the requirements of 2 section 3632(d)(4)(C) if eligible prisoners were constrained in the number of FSA 3 credits that could be applied toward prerelease custody or supervised release. In 4 addition to providing how much time could otherwise be permitted in prerelease 5 custody, subsection 3624(c)(4) further provides that “[n]othing in this subsection shall 6 be construed to limit the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under 7 section 3621.” (Emphasis added.) Respondent argues that this language also applies 8 to release under section 3632(d)(4). Not so. The fact that section 3624(g)(10) limits 9 application of subsection 3624(c) in no way suggests that a separate provision 10 contained in that section somehow applies to limit application of section 3632(d)(4). 11 Thus, the Court agrees with other district courts in this circuit that the language in 12 section 3632(d)(4)(C) is mandatory. 13 The Court now turns to Petitioner’s unresolved immigration detainer as a basis 14 for denying his FSA credit application. Respondents have not identified, and the 15 Court has not found, any place in the relevant sections where it states that individuals 16 with immigration detainers, are prohibited from applying their FSA credits for 17 prerelease. See Ramirez, 2023 WL 8878993, at *4 (discussing that BOP likely 18 exceeded its statutory authority to the extent it cancelled petitioner’s credits based on 19 a non-disqualifying conviction). Indeed, Congress appears to have considered the 20 issue of whether and to what extent undocumented immigrants should be afforded 21 the opportunity to apply time credits and concluded that prisoners who are the 22 “subject of a final order of removal under any provision of the immigration laws” are 23 ineligible to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i). Petitioner has no such final order 24 of removal. If Congress had intended for noncitizens who are subject to an 25 immigration detainer (but not a final order of removal) to be ineligible to apply 26 credits, it presumably would have said so. Perhaps recognizing this, in 2023 the BOP 27 issued Change Notice 5410.01 which struck language from Program Statement 28 5410.01, First Step Act of 2018 – Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 1 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4), such that federal prisoners subject to immigration detainers were 2 no longer automatically prohibited from applying earned time credits. Alatorre v. 3 Derr, No. 1:22-cv-00516 JMS WRP, 2023 WL 2599546, at *5 (D. Hawaii Mar. 22, 2023) 4 (explaining the changes made to Program Notice 5410.01 by Change Notice 5 5410.01). While the BOP’s program statements are not binding, see Reeb, 636 F.3d at 6 1227, it is nonetheless informative, and in any event is more consistent with the 7 statutory language.4 8 Respondents next argue that even if section 3632(d)(4)(C) is mandatory, that 9 does not mean that Petitioner is entitled to be released from prison. The argument 10 appears to be that section 3632(d)(4)(C) authorizes the BOP to allocate the credits 11 toward prerelease custody or supervised release, which would allow BOP to shorten 12 the time on supervised release at the end of the term of supervised release. (Martin 13 Opp’n at 15.) In other words, instead of transferring Petitioner to prerelease custody 14 or supervised release now, BOP could shorten the period of supervised release such 15 that when he is ultimately released, he has less supervised release time. 16 As an initial matter, the Court agrees that the BOP has discretion to determine 17 how the earned credits are to be divided between prerelease custody and supervised 18 release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). However, to the extent that Respondents are 19 attempting to argue that they are able to backend the supervisory release credits such 20 that an eligible prisoner would be eligible for early release but would remain in BOP 21 custody, the Court finds this to be in violation of the second sentence of section 22 3632(d)(4)(C), which provides that the “Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall transfer 23 eligible prisoners, as determined under section 3624(g), into prerelease custody or 24 supervised release.” An interpretation that BOP may backend the supervisory release 25 ignores the command of section 3632(d)(4)(C) that the Director “transfer” eligible 26 prisoners, since in that situation the Director would not be transferring the prisoner

27 4 Respondent has cited cases decided before this change, for instance Hassan v. Hijar, which the Court 28 does not view as persuasive. No. 3:23-cv-00041-KC, 2023 WL 1769207, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2023). 1 into either prerelease custody or supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). Here, 2 Petitioner was already awarded 700 days of prerelease credits and 365 days of 3 supervisory release credits. While BOP could have divided the time differently 4 between prerelease custody and supervised release, the Director was required to 5 transfer Petitioner into one of the two. 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated a 7 likelihood of success on the merits. 8 2. Irreparable Harm 9 A party seeking preliminary relief must also make a “clear showing” of a 10 likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of the relief requested. Winter, 555 U.S. 11 at 22; see All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (“. . . 12 plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 13 obtain a preliminary injunction.”). 14 Petitioner argues that he is irreparably harmed every day he remains in custody 15 rather than serving the final portion of his sentence on prerelease custody. The Court 16 agrees. “Every day [Petitioner] is incarcerated rather than serving the final portion of 17 his sentence on prerelease custody or supervised release as mandated by the First 18 Step Act results in irreparable injury; petitioner cannot get back the time he spends 19 incarcerated.” Ramirez, 2023 WL 8878993, at *5. Respondents contend that no 20 irreparable harm exists to Petitioner because the BOP prerelease programming is 21 discretionary. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that in the 22 context of the FSA, prerelease custody or supervised release is mandatory where the 23 prisoner is eligible. Thus, Petitioner has satisfied this requirement. 24 3. Balance of Equities and Public Interest 25 The final two Winter factors merge when the government is the nonmoving 26 party. Baird, 81 F.4th at 1040. Here, the Respondents’ harm is clearly minimal, as they 27 have no discretion to ignore the Congressional directive issued in section 28 3632(d)(4)(C). On the other hand, the hardship to Petitioner is quite clear: he is 1 harmed every day he is improperly incarcerated rather than on prerelease custody. 2 Further, the First Step Act was enacted by Congress to provide incarcerated 3 individuals the opportunity to participate in programming that would allow for 4 rehabilitation. See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, Section 101. It is unclear to 5 the Court how allowing for the discretionary removal of the incentives for following 6 through with such programming benefits the public. Moreover, Petitioner had not 7 violated any of the terms of his prerelease custody and was taking care of his serious 8 medical issues. He will be able to continue to reintegrate with his community and 9 continue his rehabilitation while in prerelease custody. 10 V. Conclusion 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 6) is 13 GRANTED; 14 A. Respondents are ordered to transfer Mr. Dumitru Martin back into 15 prerelease custody. Respondents are further restrained and 16 enjoined from removing Petitioner from prerelease custody based 17 on his immigration status. 18 B. This Temporary Restraining Order granted here shall expire on 19 March 21, 2025, at 5:00 P.M., absent further order of this Court. 20 C. No bond shall be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 65(c). 22 2. The parties are directed to meet and confer as to whether any further 23 evidence or briefing need be presented or whether the Court may adopt 24 this order as a preliminary injunction pending a final adjudication on the 25 merits. The parties shall file a joint response outlining their position(s) by 26 March 11, 2025. If either party requests further briefing on whether a 27 preliminary injunction should be entered, the parties shall propose a 28 1 schedule for Petitioner to file a motion for preliminary injunction and for 2 briefing on said motion. 3 A IT 1S SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _March 7, 2025 “Dane J CoD tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 | DJC6 - MARTIN25Ccv00687.tro 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

AA