Marvin Carias Ramirez v. Warden, California City Detention Center, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARVIN CARIAS RAMIREZ (A-Number: No. 2:26-cv-00771-KES-SKO (HC) 205-447-017), 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 11 Doc. 2 WARDEN, California City Detention 12 Center, et al., 13 Respondents. 14

15 Before the Court is petitioner Marvin Carias Ramirez’s motion for temporary restraining 16 order. Doc. 2. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the motion for 17 temporary restraining order. See e.g., Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK 18 (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES- 19 SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 20 (E.D. Cal. 2025). 21 The Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for temporary restraining order and 22 ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case 23 that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the motion. 24 Doc. 5. The Court also ordered respondents to state their position on whether the motion should 25 be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing. Id. 26 While respondents oppose the motion, they do not identify any distinctions between this case and 27 28 1 the Court’s prior decisions and do not raise any new arguments.1 See Doc. 6 at 1–2.2 They also 2 do not object to converting the motion without oral argument. See id. at 2 n.2. 3 As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 4 factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Crispin 5 M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 6 2026), J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. 7 Oct. 27, 2025), and Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025), the motion for 8 temporary restraining order is converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED, 9 for the reasons stated in those prior orders. 10 The Court ORDERS that respondents release petitioner Marvin Carias Ramirez (A- 11 Number: 205-447-017) immediately. If the government seeks to re-detain petitioner, it must 12 provide no less than seven (7) days’ notice to petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond 13 hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, at 14 which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 / / / 18

19 1 Two courts of appeal have addressed whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens who have resided in the United States without having been admitted. See Castañon-Nava v. U.S. 20 Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060–62 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that government was not likely to prevail on the merits that petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under 21 § 1225(b)(2)(A)); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ---, Nos. 25-20496, 25-40701, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (finding petitioners were subject to mandatory detention under 22 § 1225(b)(2)(A)). Respondents cite to the Buenrostro-Mendez decision. Doc. 6 at 1. The Court 23 finds the analysis in Castañon-Nava and in the dissent in Buenrostro-Mendez to be more persuasive on the statutory interpretation issue. 24 2 Respondents also request, in the alternative, that this case be held in abeyance pending the 25 appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842 (9th Cir.), which appears to concern the issue of whether § 1226(a) or § 1225(b) applies to individuals who entered the country without inspection 26 and who were not apprehended by immigration authorities before their detention in 2025. See 27 Doc. 6 at 2. Given the nature of the relief sought by petitioner, the court declines to defer a ruling on petitioner’s motion for preliminary relief. The magistrate judge may consider whether to hold 28 further proceedings on the petition in abeyance. ] The security bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 2 | regularly waive security in cases like this, and the government has not established a need to 3 | impose a security bond. 4 This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including 5 | the preparation of findings and recommendations on the petition for writ of habeas corpus or 6 | other appropriate action. 7 g | ISSO ORDERED. _ 9 Dated: _ March 12, 2026 4h 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28