Johnny Rondon Rodriguez v. Louis A. Quinones, Jr.; Garrett J. Ripa; and Kristi Noem

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 29, 2026
Docket6:26-cv-00238
StatusUnknown

This text of Johnny Rondon Rodriguez v. Louis A. Quinones, Jr.; Garrett J. Ripa; and Kristi Noem (Johnny Rondon Rodriguez v. Louis A. Quinones, Jr.; Garrett J. Ripa; and Kristi Noem) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnny Rondon Rodriguez v. Louis A. Quinones, Jr.; Garrett J. Ripa; and Kristi Noem, (M.D. Fla. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JOHNNY RONDON RODRIGUEZ Petitioner, VS. CASE NO. 6:26-cv-238-JA-RMN

LOUIS A. QUINONES, JR.; GARRETT J. RIPA; and KRISTI NOEM Respondents.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6), which contains a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). I. BACKGROUND Petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (Doc. 6).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS Courts may issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party when: (1) specific facts clearly show that “immediate and irreparable injury . . . will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition”; and (2) “the

movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the

reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). A movant must show: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (8) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the nonmovant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1228, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). The last two elements “merge when the government is the party opposing the injunctive relief.” Melendez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 21-13455, 2022 WL 1124753, at *17 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2022) (citing Swain v. Junior, 958 F.3d 1081, 1091 (11th Cir. 2020)). III. DISCUSSION As to a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the Government

may only subject aliens to mandatory detention without a bond hearing if they are an “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission” to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(a). Section 1225 only applies to aliens physically intercepted at the border, whereas 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—which requires a bond hearing—applies to aliens already present in the United States. See, e.g., Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, No. 25CV-16200, 2025 WL 2976572, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025); Kashranov v. Jamison, No. 2:25-cv-5555, 2025 WL 3188399, at *6—7 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2025). When the Government refuses to give an alien detained under § 1226(a) a bond hearing, the Government must release the

alien. See Gallardo v. Warden Glades Detention Facility, No. 2:25-cv-1193, 2026 WL 189244, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2026). And when the Government has improperly asserted mandatory detainer of an alien under § 1225(b)(2)(a), the alien must be immediately released. See Soto, 2025 WL 2976572, at *8; Gimenez Rivero v. Mina, No. 6:26-cv-66 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2026) (Doc. 13) (Dalton, J.). Here, Petitioner represents that he was already present in the United States at the time of his detention, so he has shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the argument that § 1225 is inapplicable and his detainer without a hearing is unlawful. (See Doc. 6); Soto, 2025 WL 2976572, at *7; Kashranov, 2025 WL 3188399, at *6—7. As for the remaining elements, allowing Petitioner—a cancer patient suffering from a brain tumor—to be transferred from the Orange County Jail to

an ICE holding facility would prolong his likely unlawful detention, so he has shown irreparable harm. See Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815, 821 (11th Cir. 1987) (irreparable injury is harm that cannot be undone through monetary remedies); Gayle v. Meade, 614 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1205 (8.D. Fla. 2020) (deprivation of constitutional rights is irreparable injury). And the balance of equities tips in Petitioner’s favor—as does the public interest—given the legally enshrined principles of freedom from unlawful restraint and faithful execution of the law. See Rojano Gonzalez v. Sterling, No. 1:25-cv-6080, 2025 WL 3145764, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 2025) (balance of equities and public interest weigh in

petitioner’s favor where TRO prevents respondents from application of statutory scheme in unlawful manner). IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 1. Petitioner’s request for a TRO in the Amended Petition (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. Respondents and those in privity with them are hereby TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from moving Petitioner Johnny Rondon Rodriguez out of the Orange County Jail until further order of the Court. No bond is required as the Court deems it unnecessary. 2. This TRO expires on Thursday, February 6, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. unless extended. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the Amended Petition and this Order on Respondents no later than Friday, January 30, 2026, and to notify the Court that service has been effected. The Clerk shall serve a copy of the Amended Petition and this Order on:

a. ICE (attn to the Assistant Field Office Directors) via email at MIAAOR-Habeas-DG@ice.dhs.gov b. USAO via email at USAFLM.Orlando2241@usdoj.gov

c. Courtesy copy to the Orange County Jail via email at email addresses on file with the Clerk’s office and at: i. michele.carpentieree@ocfl.net; li. so-as-legalservices@ocsofl.com; iii. OCCDRecords@ocfl.net d. Courtesy copy to USMS via email at usms-mfl-orl@usdoj.gov e. Copies via certified mail to the USAO and the USAG at physical addresses on file with the Clerk’s office, including: i. Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 li. U.S. Attorney Middle District of Florida 400 W. Washington Street Suite 3100 Orlando, FL 32801. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to electronically send a copy of this Order to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Orlando, Florida, as soon as practicable. 5. Respondents are DIRECTED to respond in writing to the Amended Petition by Monday, February 2, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. and show cause why the Court should not issue an injunction.

.

6. This matter is SET for an evidentiary hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6B of the Orlando Federal Courthouse. 7. Petitioner's presence is REQUIRED at the hearing. The Court ISSUES a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum as follows:

a. TO: Louis A. Quinones, Jr., b. TO: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), c. TO: ICE Field Office Director, Orlando Field Office, and d. TO: Any United States Marshal. It appearing to the Court that Johnny Rondon Rodriguez, a material witness in this cause, is now confined in the Orange County Jail, and that this case is set for a hearing before this Court in Courtroom Number 6B, United States Courthouse, 6th Floor, 401 W. Central Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32801 at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, now therefore, THIS IS TO COMMAND YOU, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or their designee(s) at the Orange County Jail, that you have the body of the said Johnny Rondon Rodriguez, now in the custody of the Orange County Jail and ICE, and confined in the Orange County Jail, Orlando, Florida, under safe and secure conduct before this Court in Courtroom Number 6B, United States Courthouse, 6th Floor, 401 W. Central Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32801, at 10:00 a.m.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cunningham v. Adams
808 F.2d 815 (Eleventh Circuit, 1987)
Anthony Swain v. Daniel Junior
958 F.3d 1081 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnny Rondon Rodriguez v. Louis A. Quinones, Jr.; Garrett J. Ripa; and Kristi Noem, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnny-rondon-rodriguez-v-louis-a-quinones-jr-garrett-j-ripa-and-flmd-2026.