1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 O.A.M.R.,
12 Petitioner, No. 1:25-cv-01955-TLN-JDP 13 14 v. ORDER MINGA WOFFORD, et al., 15 Respondents. 16
17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner O.A.M.R.’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for a 19 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym.1 (ECF Nos. 2, 20 3.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motions are GRANTED. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 25
26 1 The Court finds good cause to GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed via pseudonym. (ECF No. 3.) See Memorandum Re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration 27 Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l- 28 suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2007 after fleeing El Salvador due to 3 escalating threats from local gangs. (ECF No. 2 at 3.) Petitioner lives with his family, including 4 his wife and four children, two of which are minors and United States citizens. (Id.) Petitioner is 5 gainfully employed. (Id.) In 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for U Nonimmigrant Status with the 6 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), which is currently pending. (Id.) 7 On June 23, 2023, USCIS granted Petitioner an employment authorization document and deferred 8 action. (Id.) Petitioner does not have a criminal record. (Id.) 9 On December 6, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and placed into removal proceedings after a 10 traffic stop. (Id. at 2.) Despite Petitioner’s requests, he has not been provided with a bond 11 redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. (Id.) On December 21, 2025, Petitioner 12 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Petitioner filed the instant 13 TRO. (ECF No. 2.) 14 II. STANDARD OF LAW 15 For a TRO, courts consider whether Petitioner has established: “[1] that he is likely to 16 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 17 relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public 18 interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Petitioner must “make a 19 showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 20 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In evaluating a petitioner’s motion, a district court may weigh 21 petitioner’s showings on the Winter elements using a sliding-scale approach. Id. A stronger 22 showing on the balance of the hardships may support issuing a TRO even where the petitioner 23 shows that there are “serious questions on the merits . . . so long as the [petitioner] also shows 24 that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. 25 Simply put, Petitioner must demonstrate, “that [if] serious questions going to the merits were 26 raised [then] the balance of hardships [must] tip[ ] sharply” in petitioner’s favor in order to 27 succeed in a request for a TRO. Id. at 1134–35. 28 1 III. ANALYSIS2 2 A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 3 Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on his due process claim. The Fifth 4 Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits government deprivation of an individual’s life, liberty, 5 or property without due process of law. Hernandez v. Session, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017). 6 The Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the borders of the United States, 7 regardless of immigration status. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“[T]he Due 8 Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United States, including noncitizens, whether 9 their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”). These due process rights 10 extend to immigration proceedings. Id. at 693–94. 11 Courts examine procedural due process claims in two steps: the first asks whether there 12 exists a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, and the second examines the 13 procedures necessary to ensure any deprivation of that protected liberty interest accords with the 14 Constitution. See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). 15 As for the first step, the Court finds Petitioner has raised serious questions as to whether 16 he has a protectable liberty interest. See Rico-Tapia v. Smith, No. CV 25-00379 SASP-KJM, 17 2025 WL 2950089, at *8 (D. Haw. Oct. 10, 2025) (noting “[e]ven where the revocation of a 18 person’s freedom is authorized by statute, that person may retain a protected liberty interest under 19 the Due Process Clause”). For eighteen years, he built a life and established a community in 20 Oakland, California. (ECF No. 2 at 8.) He is married, has two minor, United States citizen 21 children, and is gainfully employed. (Id.) As this Court has found previously, along with many 22 other courts in this district when confronted with similar circumstances, Petitioner has a clear 23 interest in his continued freedom. See, e.g., Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1093 (E.D. 24 Cal. 2025) (noting the Government’s actions in allowing petitioner to remain in the community
25 2 The Court finds Petitioner has met the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining 26 order without notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Petitioner notified Respondents via email on December 21, 2025 that he would be filing the motion. (ECF No. 2-1 at 2.) See R.D.T.M. v. 27 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617255, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (similarly finding requirements for TRO were met without notice); Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25- 28 cv-05632-RML, 2025 WL 1853763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 4, 2025) (same). 1 for over five years strengthened petitioner’s liberty interest). 2 As to the second step – what procedures or process is due – the Court considers three 3 factors: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an 4 erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, 5 of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including 6 the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute 7 procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). As set 8 forth below, the Court finds Petitioner has established his due process rights were likely violated. 9 First, Petitioner has a substantial private interest in remaining free from detention. As 10 discussed above, Petitioner has lived in the United States for approximately eighteen years and 11 has built a life in Oakland. Despite that, Petitioner has now been detained for almost a month 12 without being afforded a hearing. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of finding Petitioner’s 13 private interest has been impacted by his detention. See Manzanarez v. Bondi, No. 1:25-CV- 14 01536-DC-CKD (HC), 2025 WL 3247258, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (finding similarly). 15 Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation is considerable given Petitioner has not received 16 any bond or custody redetermination hearing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 O.A.M.R.,
12 Petitioner, No. 1:25-cv-01955-TLN-JDP 13 14 v. ORDER MINGA WOFFORD, et al., 15 Respondents. 16
17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner O.A.M.R.’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for a 19 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym.1 (ECF Nos. 2, 20 3.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motions are GRANTED. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 25
26 1 The Court finds good cause to GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed via pseudonym. (ECF No. 3.) See Memorandum Re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration 27 Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l- 28 suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2007 after fleeing El Salvador due to 3 escalating threats from local gangs. (ECF No. 2 at 3.) Petitioner lives with his family, including 4 his wife and four children, two of which are minors and United States citizens. (Id.) Petitioner is 5 gainfully employed. (Id.) In 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for U Nonimmigrant Status with the 6 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), which is currently pending. (Id.) 7 On June 23, 2023, USCIS granted Petitioner an employment authorization document and deferred 8 action. (Id.) Petitioner does not have a criminal record. (Id.) 9 On December 6, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and placed into removal proceedings after a 10 traffic stop. (Id. at 2.) Despite Petitioner’s requests, he has not been provided with a bond 11 redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. (Id.) On December 21, 2025, Petitioner 12 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Petitioner filed the instant 13 TRO. (ECF No. 2.) 14 II. STANDARD OF LAW 15 For a TRO, courts consider whether Petitioner has established: “[1] that he is likely to 16 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 17 relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public 18 interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Petitioner must “make a 19 showing on all four prongs” of the Winter test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 20 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). In evaluating a petitioner’s motion, a district court may weigh 21 petitioner’s showings on the Winter elements using a sliding-scale approach. Id. A stronger 22 showing on the balance of the hardships may support issuing a TRO even where the petitioner 23 shows that there are “serious questions on the merits . . . so long as the [petitioner] also shows 24 that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. 25 Simply put, Petitioner must demonstrate, “that [if] serious questions going to the merits were 26 raised [then] the balance of hardships [must] tip[ ] sharply” in petitioner’s favor in order to 27 succeed in a request for a TRO. Id. at 1134–35. 28 1 III. ANALYSIS2 2 A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 3 Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on his due process claim. The Fifth 4 Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits government deprivation of an individual’s life, liberty, 5 or property without due process of law. Hernandez v. Session, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017). 6 The Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the borders of the United States, 7 regardless of immigration status. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (“[T]he Due 8 Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United States, including noncitizens, whether 9 their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”). These due process rights 10 extend to immigration proceedings. Id. at 693–94. 11 Courts examine procedural due process claims in two steps: the first asks whether there 12 exists a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, and the second examines the 13 procedures necessary to ensure any deprivation of that protected liberty interest accords with the 14 Constitution. See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). 15 As for the first step, the Court finds Petitioner has raised serious questions as to whether 16 he has a protectable liberty interest. See Rico-Tapia v. Smith, No. CV 25-00379 SASP-KJM, 17 2025 WL 2950089, at *8 (D. Haw. Oct. 10, 2025) (noting “[e]ven where the revocation of a 18 person’s freedom is authorized by statute, that person may retain a protected liberty interest under 19 the Due Process Clause”). For eighteen years, he built a life and established a community in 20 Oakland, California. (ECF No. 2 at 8.) He is married, has two minor, United States citizen 21 children, and is gainfully employed. (Id.) As this Court has found previously, along with many 22 other courts in this district when confronted with similar circumstances, Petitioner has a clear 23 interest in his continued freedom. See, e.g., Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1093 (E.D. 24 Cal. 2025) (noting the Government’s actions in allowing petitioner to remain in the community
25 2 The Court finds Petitioner has met the requirements for issuing a temporary restraining 26 order without notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Petitioner notified Respondents via email on December 21, 2025 that he would be filing the motion. (ECF No. 2-1 at 2.) See R.D.T.M. v. 27 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617255, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (similarly finding requirements for TRO were met without notice); Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25- 28 cv-05632-RML, 2025 WL 1853763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 4, 2025) (same). 1 for over five years strengthened petitioner’s liberty interest). 2 As to the second step – what procedures or process is due – the Court considers three 3 factors: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” (2) “the risk of an 4 erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, 5 of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and (3) “the Government’s interest, including 6 the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute 7 procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). As set 8 forth below, the Court finds Petitioner has established his due process rights were likely violated. 9 First, Petitioner has a substantial private interest in remaining free from detention. As 10 discussed above, Petitioner has lived in the United States for approximately eighteen years and 11 has built a life in Oakland. Despite that, Petitioner has now been detained for almost a month 12 without being afforded a hearing. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of finding Petitioner’s 13 private interest has been impacted by his detention. See Manzanarez v. Bondi, No. 1:25-CV- 14 01536-DC-CKD (HC), 2025 WL 3247258, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (finding similarly). 15 Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation is considerable given Petitioner has not received 16 any bond or custody redetermination hearing. “Civil immigration detention, which is nonpunitive 17 in purpose and effect is justified when a noncitizen presents a risk of flight or danger to the 18 community.” R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617255, at 19 *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Petitioner has no criminal 20 history. Based on this record, the Court finds there is a serious likelihood Petitioner will be 21 erroneously deprived of his liberty interest. Moreover, without any procedural safeguards to 22 determine whether his detention was justifiable, the probative value of additional procedural 23 safeguards is high. R.D.T.M., 2025 WL 2617255, at *4. 24 Finally, the Government’s interest is low, and the effort and cost required to provide 25 Petitioner with procedural safeguards are minimal. See Garcia v. Andrews, No. 2:25-CV-01884- 26 TLN-SCR, 2025 WL 1927596, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2025). As this Court stated recently, it 27 would be less of a fiscal and administrative burden for the Government to return Petitioner home 28 to await a determination on his immigration petition than to continue to detain him. 1 On balance, the Court finds the Matthews factors demonstrate Petitioner is entitled to due 2 process – a hearing to determine whether his detention was warranted. Accordingly, with respect 3 to his due process claim, Petitioner has shown he is likely to succeed on the merits. 4 B. Irreparable Harm 5 Petitioner has also established he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO. 6 The Ninth Circuit recognizes “irreparable harms imposed on anyone subject to immigration 7 detention,” including “the economic burdens imposed on detainees and their families as a result 8 of detention[.]” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 995. Such harm is present here. Petitioner has been 9 detained for almost a month and has been separated from wife and family. Even if this was not 10 sufficient to establish irreparable harm, “[i]t is well established that the deprivation of 11 constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 12 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). 13 C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest 14 As to the final two Winter factors, “[w]hen the government is a party, the analysis of the 15 balance of the hardships and the public interest merge.” Nat’l Urban League v. Ross, 484 F. 16 Supp. 3d 802, 807 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 17 (9th Cir. 2014)). The Court finds there is no equitable reason that would tip the balance in the 18 Government’s favor, because the Government faces no hardship. First, it is clear on this record 19 that the balance of equities tips decidedly in Petitioner’s favor as the Government “cannot 20 reasonably assert that it is harmed in any legally cognizable sense by being enjoined from 21 constitutional violations.” Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Nat. Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 22 1983). Second, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s 23 constitutional rights.” Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002. Moreover, “the Ninth Circuit has recognized 24 that the costs to the public of immigration detention are staggering.” Diaz v. Kaiser, No. 3:25- 25 CV-05071, 2025 WL 1676854, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2025) (internal citation omitted). 26 In sum, these last two factors also weigh in Petitioner’s favor. Therefore, the Court 27 GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for a TRO. (ECF No. 2.) 28 /// 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED; 4 2. Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 5 3. The bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 6 regularly waive security in cases like this one. See Diaz v. Brewer, 656 F.3d 1008, 1015 7 (9th Cir. 2011); 8 4. Petitioner shall immediately provide Respondents’ counsel with Petitioner’s identity; 9 5. Petitioner O.A.M.R shall be released immediately from Respondents’ custody; 10 6. Respondents are enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner 11 absent compliance with constitutional protections, including notice and a hearing before a 12 neutral fact-finder where Respondents show: (a) there are material changed circumstances 13 which demonstrate that there is a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the 14 reasonably foreseeable future, or (b) Respondents demonstrate by clear and convincing 15 evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk. At any such 16 hearing, Petitioner shall be allowed to have his counsel present. 17 7. Respondents are ordered to show cause why this Court should not convert this temporary 18 restraining order into a preliminary injunction requiring Respondents to continue to abide 19 by this Court’s order. Respondents shall file responsive papers by Monday, December 20 29, 2025. Petitioner may file a reply, if any, by Monday, December 29, 2025, by 12 21 p.m. If the parties agree upon a less demanding briefing schedule, the Court will consider 22 the parties’ proposal. The parties shall indicate in their briefing whether they request a 23 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3); 24 8. Petitioner is ordered to serve this Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause 25 and all supporting pleadings and papers on Respondents by 12:00 p.m. on December 22, 26 2025. Petitioner shall file proof of such service no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 27 2025. 28 9. Respondents are hereby notified of their right to apply to the Court for modification or ] dissolution of the Temporary Restraining Order by 3:00 p.m. on December 23, 2025. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | DATED: December 21, 2025 Lat > Troy L. Nunley 6 Chief United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28