Manuel Antonio Mejia Munguia 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 7 8 Manuel Antonio Mejia Munguia No. 2:26-cv-01174-KES-SKO (HC) (A-Number: A-243-162-988), 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND v. REQUIRING IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11 Warden, California City Correctional 12 Center; Field Office Director, San Diego Doc. 2 13 Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd M. Lyons, 14 Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, 15 Secretary of Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, United States Attorney General, 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Before the Court is petitioner Manuel Antonio Mejia Munguia’s motion for temporary 20 restraining order. Doc. 2. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the 21 motion for temporary restraining order. See e.g., Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487- 22 KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV- 23 01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 24 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025). 25 The Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for temporary restraining order and 26 ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case 27 that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the motion. 28 Doc. 4. The Court also ordered respondents to state their position on whether the motion should 1 be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing. Id. 2 Respondents “submit[] there are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that materially 3 distinguish it from the cases identified in the Order.” Doc. 6 at 1. While respondents oppose the 4 motion, they do not raise any new arguments. See id. at 1–2.1 They also do not object to 5 converting the motion. See id. 6 As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 7 factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Crispin M. 8 C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 9 2026), J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. 10 Oct. 27, 2025), and Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025), the motion for 11 temporary restraining order is converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED, 12 for the reasons stated in those prior orders. 13 The Court ORDERS that respondents release petitioner Manuel Antonio Mejia Munguia 14 (A-Number: A-243-162-988) immediately. If the government seeks to re-detain petitioner, it 15 must provide no less than seven (7) days’ notice to petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation 16 bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its implementing 17 regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. 18 Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with a copy of this Order upon his 19 release. Petitioner is hereby notified that this case will remain ongoing after he is released, and 20 all further filings in this case will only be mailed to his address of record, which is currently the 21 California City Detention Center. Following his release, petitioner must file a notice of change of 22 address to update his address, by mailing that notice to the Clerk of Court at 2500 Tulare Street, 23 1 Respondents also request, in the alternative, that the Court hold this case in abeyance pending 24 the appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.), which concerns the issue of whether § 1226(a) or § 1225(b)(2) applies to individuals who entered the country without inspection, were 25 not apprehended by immigration authorities upon arrival, and are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231. See Doc. 6 at 2. Given the nature of the relief sought 26 by petitioner, the Court declines to defer a ruling on petitioner’s motion for preliminary 27 relief. The magistrate judge may consider whether to hold further proceedings on the petition in abeyance. 28 1 | Fresno, California 93721. 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 The Clerk is directed to serve California City Detention Center with a copy of this Order. 9 19 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 11 Dated: _ April 6, 2026 4h | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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