R. P.B. v. Minga Wofford, Field Office Director, Mesa Verde, Office of Detention and Removal, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Sergio Albarran, Acting Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pam Bondi, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General of the United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01908
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 R. P.B., No. 1:26-cv-01908-KES-SKO (HC) 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11 MINGA WOFFORD, Field Office Director, Doc. 2 Mesa Verde, Office of Detention and 12 Removal, U.S. Immigrations and Customs 13 Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Acting 14 Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement 15 Office; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 16 U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 17 Enforcement; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 18 Security; and PAM BONDI, in her Official Capacity, Attorney General of the United 19 States, 20 Respondents. 21 22 Before the Court is petitioner R. P.B.’s motion for temporary restraining order. Doc. 2. 23 The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by the motion for temporary 24 restraining order. See e.g., Crispin M. C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 25 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026); J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 26 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 27 2025). 28 1 The Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for temporary restraining order and 2 ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case 3 that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the motion. 4 Doc. 7. The Court also ordered respondents to state their position on whether the motion should 5 be converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and whether they request a hearing. Id. 6 Respondents state that “there are no significant factual or legal issues in this case that materially 7 distinguish it from the cases identified in the Order.” See Doc. 10 at 1. While respondents 8 oppose the motion, they do not raise any new arguments.1 See id. at 1–2. They also do not object 9 to converting the motion. See id. 10 As respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 11 factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Crispin M. 12 C. v. Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01487-KES-HBK (HC), 2026 WL 70553 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 13 2026), J.A.C.P. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01354-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3013328 (E.D. Cal. 14 Oct. 27, 2025), and Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2025), the motion for 15 temporary restraining order is converted to a motion for preliminary injunction and GRANTED, 16 for the reasons stated in those prior orders. 17 The Court ORDERS that respondents release petitioner immediately. If the government 18 seeks to re-detain petitioner, it must provide no less than seven (7) days’ notice to petitioner and 19 must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and 20 its implementing regulations, at which petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. 21 The security bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. Courts 22 regularly waive security in cases like this, and the government has not established a need to 23 impose a security bond. 24 1 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. 10 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 28 to hold further proceedings on the petition in abeyance. ] This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 2 3 | ITIS SO ORDERED. _ 4 Dated: _ March 13, 2026 4h | | ; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28