Jairon Estuardo Gomez-Juarez v. Warden, California City Correctional Center; Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, United States Attorney General

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Jairon Estuardo Gomez-Juarez No. 2:26-cv-01098-KES-CDB (HC) (A-Number: A-221-489-803), 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 15 Doc. 2 Warden, California City Correctional 16 Center; Field Office Director, San Diego 17 Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd M. Lyons, 18 Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, 19 Secretary of Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, United States Attorney General, 20 Respondents. 21 22 23 Before the Court is petitioner Jairon Estuardo Gomez-Juarez’s motion for temporary 24 restraining order. Doc. 2. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the 25 motion for temporary restraining order. See e.g., Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487- 26 KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV- 27 01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 28 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025). 1 The Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for temporary restraining order and 2 ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case 3 that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the motion. 4 Doc. 4. The Court also ordered respondents to state their position on whether the motion should 5 be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing. Id. 6 Respondents “submit there are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that materially 7 distinguish it from the cases identified in the Order.” Doc. 6 at 1. While respondents oppose the 8 motion, they do not raise any new arguments. See id. at 1–2.1 They also do not object to 9 converting the motion and waive oral argument. See id. 10 As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 11 factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Crispin M. 12 C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 13 2026), J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. 14 Oct. 27, 2025), and Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025), the motion for 15 temporary restraining order is converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED, 16 for the reasons stated in those prior orders. 17 The Court ORDERS that respondents release petitioner Jairon Estuardo Gomez-Juarez 18 (A-Number: A-221-489-803) immediately. If the government seeks to re-detain petitioner, it 19 must provide no less than seven (7) days’ notice to petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation 20 bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its implementing 21 regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. 22 Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with a copy of this Order upon his 23

24 1 Respondents also request, in the alternative, that the Court hold this case in abeyance pending the appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.), which concerns the issue of whether 25 § 1226(a) or § 1225(b)(2) applies to individuals who entered the country without inspection, were not apprehended by immigration authorities upon arrival, and are not subject to detention under 8 26 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231. See Doc. 6 at 2. Given the nature of the relief sought 27 by petitioner, the Court declines to defer a ruling on petitioner’s motion for preliminary relief. The magistrate judge may consider whether to hold further proceedings on the petition in 28 abeyance. 1 | release. 2 The security bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 3 | regularly waive security in cases like this, and the government has not established a need to 4 | impose a security bond. 5 This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including 6 | the preparation of findings and recommendations on the petition for writ of habeas corpus or 7 | other appropriate action. 8 g | ISSO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ March 31, 2026 □□ | | 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28