N.Y.F.S. v. PAMELA BONDI

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02556
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 N.Y.F.S., CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02556-LK 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A 9 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. AND ORDERING PARTIES TO MEET 10 AND CONFER PAMELA BONDI, 11 Respondents. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner N.Y.F.S.’s motion for a temporary 15 restraining order (“TRO”). She asks the Court to prevent Respondents from removing her from 16 the United States or transferring her from the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma 17 (“NWIPC”), Washington to any other facility during the pendency of these proceedings. For the 18 reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Petitioner is currently being held in detention at the Northwest ICE Processing Center 21 (“NWIPC”). Dkt. No. 1 at 6. She avers that she is woman from Honduras who fled to the United 22 States to escape from the father of her children. Id. She states that she attended a hearing with an 23 immigration judge in Utah, but was forced to flee that state “as the father of her children had 24 1 discovered where she had fled to.” Id. As a result, a removal order was issued against her that she 2 states she had no notice of. Id at 6–7. Petitioner states that she was detained by Immigration and 3 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on November 26, 2025 and her removal order was discovered when

4 ICE ran her fingerprints at the Portland ICE facility. Id. at 7. Petitioner was then transferred to the 5 NWIPC. Id. Petitioner states that she immediately “sought to obtain counsel to pursue a motion to 6 reopen her removal proceedings, rescind her removal order, and pursue relief from deportation 7 including through filing an asylum application and application for T-Visa.” Id. 8 Petitioner states she has a four year old son and cares for her 20 year-old nephew. Id at 6– 9 7. She states that she “continues to witness fellow detainees being torn from their units and being 10 told they are being transferred to other states,” and therefore “fears that at any moment she will be 11 transferred and she will [lose] her access to counsel and her ability to care of her son.” Dkt. No. 2 12 at 2. She also avers that she has a “high likelihood of succeeding in setting aside the removal order

13 if she can retain her current counsel,” and “the probability of removal is high due to the removal 14 order.” Id. at 4–5. She “seeks an emergency TRO and stay of removal.” Id. at 2. 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A. Legal Standard 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue a TRO. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 65(b). Like a preliminary injunction, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 19 right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); see also Washington v. Trump, 20 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (the standards applicable to TROs and preliminary 21 injunctions are “substantially identical”). The Court will not “mechanically” grant an injunction 22 for every violation of law. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313 (1982). Instead,

23 plaintiffs seeking a TRO must establish that (1) they are “likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) they 24 are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “the balance of 1 equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 2 20. The mere “possibility” of irreparable harm is insufficient; instead, the moving party must 3 “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Id. at 22.

4 Here, Petitioner has not made the required showing that she is “likely to suffer irreparable 5 harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Petitioner seeks to prevent 6 transfer away from the NWIPC, but she advances no evidence that “irreparable injury is likely in 7 the absence of an injunction.” See id. at 22. Her motion states only that she “continues to witness 8 fellow detainees being torn from their units and being told they are being transferred to other 9 states,” Dkt. No. 2 at 2, and this, without more, does not support an inference that she is likely to 10 be transferred to another state. She speculates that a “transfer is likely to result in prolonged 11 detention out of state, which separates her even further from her four year old son whose trauma 12 at [losing] his mother increases every day that she is gone.” Id. at 4. This speculation is not enough

13 to establish that imminent harm is likely. See, e.g., Amylin Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 456 F. 14 App'x 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that because an injury is not imminent “but rather may 15 occur at some indefinite time in the future, the injury does not support injunctive relief”). Similarly, 16 her statement that “the probability of removal is high due to the removal order,” Dkt. No. 2 at 5, 17 does not establish that removal is imminent. 18 Because the Petitioner has not shown that imminent harm is likely, the Court cannot grant 19 that “extraordinary remedy.” See Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 The Court orders as follows: 22 1. Petitioner’s request for TRO preventing removal or transfer is DENIED because she does

23 not establish imminent injury. 24 1 2. Petitioner’s counsel SHALL immediately serve a copy of this Order on Respondents. 2 Petitioner’s counsel SHALL immediately contact Respondents’ counsel 3 (usawaw.Habeas@usdoj.gov) to meet and confer on (1) a briefing schedule for the petition

4 for habeas corpus, and (2) whether the Government will agree to a stipulated order not to 5 remove Petitioner from the United States and not to transfer her to another facility during 6 the pendency of this action. The parties shall file a joint status report addressing these issues 7 by no later than December 16, 2025. 8 3. Pursuant to the Court’s “inherent authority and responsibility to protect the integrity of its 9 [habeas] proceedings,” Ozturk v. Trump, 779 F. Supp. 3d 462, 496 (D. Vt. 2025), aff’d in 10 relevant part sub nom. Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 394 (2d Cir. 2025), the Court 11 provisionally ORDERS that Respondents must provide Petitioner and her counsel in this 12 habeas action at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into the

13 weekend) prior to any action to (1) move or transfer her from the Northwest Immigration 14 and Customs Enforcement Processing Center (except for a move that is required for 15 medical evaluation, medical treatment, or release) or (2) remove her from the United 16 States. This Order remains in place until further order of the Court. 17 Finally, a notice regarding consent to a Magistrate Judge will be added to the docket. 18 Consent is voluntary. Counsel for the parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or 19 decline consent by no later than December 19, 2025, by emailing the form to Natalie Wood at 20 Natalie_Wood@wawd.uscourts.gov. If the parties consent, a Magistrate Judge will preside over 21 // 22 //

23 // 24 1 the entire case through judgment. If the parties decline consent, the case will remain assigned to 2 the undersigned. See Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 73; see also General Order 3 5-25.

4 Dated this 12th day of December, 2025. 5 A 6 Lauren King United States District Judge 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24