Jairo Jose Medina Sanchez v. Warden, California City Corrections Center; Director of San Francisco Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Jairo Jose Medina Sanchez, No. 1:26-cv-01676-KES-SKO (HC) 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 11 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 12 Warden, California City Corrections Center; Doc. 2 Director of San Francisco Field Office, U.S. 13 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 14 Respondents. 15

16 Before the Court is petitioner Jairo Jose Medina Sanchez’s motion for temporary 17 restraining order. Doc. 2. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the 18 motion for temporary restraining order. See e.g., Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487- 19 KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV- 20 01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 21 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025). 22 The Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for temporary restraining order and 23 ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case 24 that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the motion. 25 Doc. 4. The Court also ordered respondents to state their position on whether the motion should 26 be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they requested a hearing. Id. 27 Respondents state that “there are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that materially 28 1 distinguish it from the cases identified in the Order.” See Doc. 7. While respondents oppose the 2 motion, they do not raise any new arguments.1 See id. at 1–2.2 They also do not object to 3 converting the motion. See id. at 1. 4 As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 5 factual or legal issues in this case that render it distinguishable from the Court’s prior decisions in 6 Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 7 2026), J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. 8 Oct. 27, 2025), and Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025), the motion for 9 temporary restraining order is converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED, 10 for the reasons stated in those prior orders. 11 The Court ORDERS that respondents release petitioner immediately. If the government 12 seeks to re-detain petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days’ notice to petitioner and 13 must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and 14 its implementing regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. 15 The security bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 16 regularly waive security in cases like this, and the government has not established a need to 17 impose a security bond. 18 /// 19 1 Two courts of appeal have addressed whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens 20 who have resided in the United States without having been admitted. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that government 21 was not likely to prevail on the merits that petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 22 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (finding petitioners were subject to mandatory detention under 23 § 1225(b)(2)(A)). Respondents cite to the Buenrostro-Mendez decision. Doc. 7. The Court finds the analysis in Castañon-Nava and in the dissent in Buenrostro-Mendez to be more persuasive on 24 the statutory interpretation issue. In any event, the Buenrostro-Mendez decision did not address the due process claim at issue in the present case. 25

2 Respondents also request, in the alternative, that the Court hold this case in abeyance pending 26 the appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.) and Benavides Carballo v. Andrews, 27 No. 25-6533 (9th Cir.). See Doc. 7 at 2. As this matter is being referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, the magistrate judge may consider whether to hold 28 further proceedings on the petition in abeyance. ] This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including 2 | the preparation of findings and recommendations on the petition for writ of habeas corpus or 3 | other appropriate action. 4 5 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _ 6 Dated: _ March 8, 2026 4h | | 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28