Jose Matir-Martinez v. Bruce Scott, et al

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02194
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JOSE MATIR-MARTINEZ, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02194-LK-BAT 9 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 10 ORDER 11 BRUCE SCOTT, et al, 12 Respondents. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Jose Matir-Martinez’s Emergency 15 Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction. Dkt. No. 2. For the following 16 reasons, the Court denies the motion. 17 Mr. Matir-Martinez’s emergency motion seeks to enjoin Respondent Bruce Scott and other 18 unnamed individuals from “deporting him back to El Salvador and any other country unknown to 19 him that would jeopardize his life[,] health[,] and well being in violation of [his] constitutional 20 protections and rights of due process and liberty interest.” Id. at 1–2. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue a temporary restraining 22 order (“TRO”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Like a preliminary injunction, a TRO is “an extraordinary 23 remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); 24 see also Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (the standards applicable 1 to TROs and preliminary injunctions are “substantially identical”). The Court will not 2 “mechanically” grant an injunction for every violation of law. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 3 U.S. 305, 313 (1982). Instead, plaintiffs seeking a TRO must establish that (1) they are “likely to

4 succeed on the merits,” (2) they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 5 relief,” (3) “the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “an injunction is in the public 6 interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The mere “possibility” of irreparable harm is insufficient; instead, 7 the moving party must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an 8 injunction.” Id. at 22. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral 9 notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 10 complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 11 movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and “the movant[] . . . certifies in 12 writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R.

13 Civ. P. 65(b)(1). 14 Here, Mr. Matir-Martinez is not entitled to a TRO—with or without notice to the opposing 15 parties—because he does not allege that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of 16 emergency relief. Specifically, he does not assert anywhere in his TRO, habeas petition, or related 17 documents—nor is it apparent from any of those documents, see Dkt. Nos. 2, 6—that he will 18 imminently be removed to “El Salvador [or] any other country unknown to him that would 19 jeopardize his life[,] health[,] and well being[.]” Dkt. No. 2 at 1–2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 20 Mr. Matir-Martinez’s Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary 21 Injunction. Dkt. No. 2. 22 Dated this 5th day of November, 2025. A 23 Lauren King 24 United States District Judge