Nguyen v. Scott

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 PHONG THANH NGUYEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01398 8 Petitioner, SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON RULE 65(C) 9 v. 10 BRUCE SCOTT, Warden, Northwest ICE 11 Processing Center; CAMMILLA 12 WAMSLEY, Enforcement and Removal 13 Operations, Seattle Field Office Director, U.S. 14 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 15 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department 16 of Homeland Security, 17 Respondents. 18

19 I. ORDER 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), in granting a preliminary injunction, the 21 court must require a movant to pay security “in an amount that the court considers proper to pay 22 the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or 23 restrained.” The Ninth Circuit has held that “[d]espite the seemingly mandatory language, Rule 24 1 65(c) invests the district court with discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.” 2 Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation modified); see also 3 Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing cases) (similar). It is

4 within the district court’s discretion to waive the bond requirement entirely if there is no 5 evidence the party will suffer damages from the injunction, if the balance of equities 6 overwhelmingly favors the movant, or where requiring security would effectively deny access to 7 judicial review. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 349 F. Supp. 3d 838, 868 (N.D. Cal. 8 2018), aff’d, 950 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2020), and aff’d sub nom. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. 9 Biden, 993 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2021), and aff’d, 950 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2020), and aff’d sub 10 nom. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing cases); Save Our 11 Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1126 (9th Cir. 2005). 12 The Court issued a preliminary injunction on August 21, 2025. Dkt. 45. The Court

13 ordered the immediate release of Petitioner Phong Thanh Nguyen from custody under the 14 conditions of his most recent order of supervision. Id. at 55. The Court also prohibited 15 Respondents (1) from removing petitioner to a country other than Vietnam without notice and a 16 meaningful opportunity to be heard in reopened removal proceedings with a hearing before an 17 immigration judge and (2) from removing Petitioner to any country where he is likely to face 18 imprisonment upon arrival. Id. 19 The Court declines to impose a bond for two reasons. First, in their opposition to the 20 motion, Respondents did not request a bond under Rule 65(c). See generally Dkt. 37. This alone 21 is cause for the Court to exercise its discretion not to impose a bond. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Life 22 Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he bond amount

23 may be zero if there is no evidence the party will suffer damages from the injunction.”); Doe v. 24 Noem, 778 F. Supp. 3d 1151, 1167 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“The court noted that Defendants did l not allege any costs they would face if the TRO was issued erroneously, and the Court perceived 2 .... The Court therefore exercises its discretion to waive the bond requirement.”); Jorge 3 v. Jennings, 534 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“In this case, the government 4 has not requested the posting of security and the Court declines to order it.”). 5 Second, the balance of equities overwhelmingly favors Petitioner. Dkt. 45 at 54-55. This 6 too offers reason for the Court to waive the bond requirement. See FE. Bay Sanctuary, 349 F. 7 Supp. 3d at 868. 8 For these reasons, the Court waives the bond requirement under Rule 65(c). 9 Dated this 25th day of August, 2025. " Ee KS 11 TiffanyM. Cartwright United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24