1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA ELENA RUIZ OTERO, as next Case No. 25-cv-06536 (EKL) friend and on behalf of ISMAEL DAVID 8 CAICEDO RUIZ, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY 9 Petitioner, RESTRAINING ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No. 3 10
11 POLLY KAISER, Acting Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration 12 a L n Y d O C N u S st , o A m c s t i E n n g f D or i c re e c m to e r n t o O f U ff n ic i e te ; d T S O t D at D es 13 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United 14 States Department of Homeland Security, PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the 15 United States, acting in their official capacities, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 19 brought on behalf of her son, Ismael David Caicedo Ruiz (“Caicedo Ruiz”). TRO Mot., ECF 20 No. 3. Petitioner simultaneously filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Ex Parte Motion 21 for Temporary Restraining Order against Respondents Acting Field Office Director Polly Kaiser, 22 Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd M. Lyons, Secretary of the 23 Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and United States Attorney General Pamela 24 Bondi on August 3, 2025. Petitioner asks this Court to (1) order Caicedo Ruiz’s immediate 25 release from Respondents’ custody pending these proceedings, and (2) enjoin Respondents from 26 transferring Caicedo Ruiz out of this District or deporting him during the pendency of the 27 underlying proceedings. See Notice of Mot., ECF No. 2. For the foregoing reasons, the TRO is 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 According to the record before the Court, Caicedo Ruiz is a “20-year-old from Colombia 3 who has applied for asylum” and seeks Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”). Petition ¶ 1, 4 ECF No. 1. Caicedo Ruiz’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 5 Convention Against Torture is pending in San Francisco Immigration Court. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. 6 He “came to the United States in November 2023 to seek asylum, and DHS released him into the 7 interior on his own recognizance, with a notice to appear in immigration court.” Petition ¶ 1 8 (noting that he “does not have any criminal record”). “In releasing him, DHS determined that he 9 did not present a risk of flight or danger to the community. A DHS agent told him to show up for 10 court, and he has. He was told to give his address to [the Executive Office of Immigration 11 Review], and he has.” Id. ¶ 56. 12 On Friday, August 1, 2025, Caicedo Ruiz “attended his ‘master calendar’ immigration 13 court hearing at the San Francisco Immigration Court.” Id. ¶ 3. At the hearing, the government 14 moved to dismiss its case seeking Caicedo Ruiz’s removal. Id. The presiding judge gave Caicedo 15 Ruiz ten days to respond to the motion. Id. A pro bono attorney filed an opposition to the 16 government’s motion on Caicedo Ruiz’s behalf. Id.; see also ECF No. 1-1. 17 “Upon exiting the courtroom, [Caicedo Ruiz] was suddenly arrested by ICE agents.” Id. 18 ¶ 4. Since his arrest, Caicedo Ruiz has been detained “in a crowded holding room at 630 Sansome 19 Street.” Id. ¶ 2. The Petition reports that these events have caused Caicedo Ruiz “substantial 20 harm, including the emotional trauma of a sudden custodial arrest when he had been compliant 21 with legal requirements since his entry to the United States.” Id. ¶ 12. “The privation of his 22 liberty greatly complicates his ability to pursue his asylum and SIJS applications and causes 23 difficulty in communicating with counsel.” Id. ¶ 13. 24 On August 3, 2025, this Petition was filed. Petitioner contends that Caicedo Ruiz’s arrest 25 and detention violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, both substantively (because 26 Respondents allegedly have no valid interest in detaining him) and procedurally (because he was 27 not provided with a pre-detention bond hearing). 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 3 issuing a preliminary injunction. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 4 2017) (“[T]he legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially 5 identical.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). A plaintiff seeking preliminary 6 injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to 7 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in 8 his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 9 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that there are serious 10 questions going to the merits – a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a 11 preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s 12 favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 13 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[W]hen the 14 Government is the opposing party,” the final two factors “merge.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 15 435 (2009). 16 An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may 17 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 18 U.S. at 22. A “TRO ‘should be restricted to . . . preserving the status quo and preventing 19 irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a [preliminary injunction] hearing and no 20 longer.’” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 779 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 21 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 22 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the requirements for issuing a temporary 25 restraining order without notice set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) are met in this 26 case. Petitioner’s counsel has set out specific facts in a verified complaint, showing that 27 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage may result before the adverse party can be heard 1 attempted to contact the Civil Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern 2 District of California on August 3, 2025, and provided a copy of Petitioner’s habeas petition by 3 email. See Wells Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 2-1; see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1)(B). 4 Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that Caicedo 5 Ruiz’s ongoing detention violates his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. 6 The Due Process Clause entitles Caicedo Ruiz to a bond hearing before an immigration judge 7 prior to any arrest or detention. See, e.g., Order at 4, Pablo Sequen v. Kaiser, No. 25-cv-06487- 8 PCP (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2025), ECF No. 7 (collecting cases). 9 Petitioner has also demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of 10 temporary relief. The likely unconstitutional deprivation of liberty that Caicedo Ruiz faces is an 11 immediate and irreparable harm. “It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights 12 ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th 13 Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA ELENA RUIZ OTERO, as next Case No. 25-cv-06536 (EKL) friend and on behalf of ISMAEL DAVID 8 CAICEDO RUIZ, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY 9 Petitioner, RESTRAINING ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No. 3 10
11 POLLY KAISER, Acting Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration 12 a L n Y d O C N u S st , o A m c s t i E n n g f D or i c re e c m to e r n t o O f U ff n ic i e te ; d T S O t D at D es 13 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United 14 States Department of Homeland Security, PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the 15 United States, acting in their official capacities, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, 19 brought on behalf of her son, Ismael David Caicedo Ruiz (“Caicedo Ruiz”). TRO Mot., ECF 20 No. 3. Petitioner simultaneously filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Ex Parte Motion 21 for Temporary Restraining Order against Respondents Acting Field Office Director Polly Kaiser, 22 Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd M. Lyons, Secretary of the 23 Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and United States Attorney General Pamela 24 Bondi on August 3, 2025. Petitioner asks this Court to (1) order Caicedo Ruiz’s immediate 25 release from Respondents’ custody pending these proceedings, and (2) enjoin Respondents from 26 transferring Caicedo Ruiz out of this District or deporting him during the pendency of the 27 underlying proceedings. See Notice of Mot., ECF No. 2. For the foregoing reasons, the TRO is 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 According to the record before the Court, Caicedo Ruiz is a “20-year-old from Colombia 3 who has applied for asylum” and seeks Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”). Petition ¶ 1, 4 ECF No. 1. Caicedo Ruiz’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 5 Convention Against Torture is pending in San Francisco Immigration Court. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. 6 He “came to the United States in November 2023 to seek asylum, and DHS released him into the 7 interior on his own recognizance, with a notice to appear in immigration court.” Petition ¶ 1 8 (noting that he “does not have any criminal record”). “In releasing him, DHS determined that he 9 did not present a risk of flight or danger to the community. A DHS agent told him to show up for 10 court, and he has. He was told to give his address to [the Executive Office of Immigration 11 Review], and he has.” Id. ¶ 56. 12 On Friday, August 1, 2025, Caicedo Ruiz “attended his ‘master calendar’ immigration 13 court hearing at the San Francisco Immigration Court.” Id. ¶ 3. At the hearing, the government 14 moved to dismiss its case seeking Caicedo Ruiz’s removal. Id. The presiding judge gave Caicedo 15 Ruiz ten days to respond to the motion. Id. A pro bono attorney filed an opposition to the 16 government’s motion on Caicedo Ruiz’s behalf. Id.; see also ECF No. 1-1. 17 “Upon exiting the courtroom, [Caicedo Ruiz] was suddenly arrested by ICE agents.” Id. 18 ¶ 4. Since his arrest, Caicedo Ruiz has been detained “in a crowded holding room at 630 Sansome 19 Street.” Id. ¶ 2. The Petition reports that these events have caused Caicedo Ruiz “substantial 20 harm, including the emotional trauma of a sudden custodial arrest when he had been compliant 21 with legal requirements since his entry to the United States.” Id. ¶ 12. “The privation of his 22 liberty greatly complicates his ability to pursue his asylum and SIJS applications and causes 23 difficulty in communicating with counsel.” Id. ¶ 13. 24 On August 3, 2025, this Petition was filed. Petitioner contends that Caicedo Ruiz’s arrest 25 and detention violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, both substantively (because 26 Respondents allegedly have no valid interest in detaining him) and procedurally (because he was 27 not provided with a pre-detention bond hearing). 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 3 issuing a preliminary injunction. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 4 2017) (“[T]he legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially 5 identical.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). A plaintiff seeking preliminary 6 injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to 7 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in 8 his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 9 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that there are serious 10 questions going to the merits – a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the merits – then a 11 preliminary injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s 12 favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 13 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[W]hen the 14 Government is the opposing party,” the final two factors “merge.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 15 435 (2009). 16 An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may 17 only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 18 U.S. at 22. A “TRO ‘should be restricted to . . . preserving the status quo and preventing 19 irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a [preliminary injunction] hearing and no 20 longer.’” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 779 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting 21 Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 22 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the requirements for issuing a temporary 25 restraining order without notice set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) are met in this 26 case. Petitioner’s counsel has set out specific facts in a verified complaint, showing that 27 immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage may result before the adverse party can be heard 1 attempted to contact the Civil Division Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern 2 District of California on August 3, 2025, and provided a copy of Petitioner’s habeas petition by 3 email. See Wells Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 2-1; see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(b)(1)(B). 4 Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that Caicedo 5 Ruiz’s ongoing detention violates his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. 6 The Due Process Clause entitles Caicedo Ruiz to a bond hearing before an immigration judge 7 prior to any arrest or detention. See, e.g., Order at 4, Pablo Sequen v. Kaiser, No. 25-cv-06487- 8 PCP (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2025), ECF No. 7 (collecting cases). 9 Petitioner has also demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of 10 temporary relief. The likely unconstitutional deprivation of liberty that Caicedo Ruiz faces is an 11 immediate and irreparable harm. “It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights 12 ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th 13 Cir. 2017) (quoting Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)). “When an alleged 14 deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of 15 irreparable injury is necessary.” Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2005) 16 (cleaned up). “[I]t follows inexorably from [the] conclusion” that Caicedo Ruiz’s detention 17 without a pre-detention hearing is “likely unconstitutional,” that he has “also carried [his] burden 18 as to irreparable harm.” Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 995. 19 The final two Winter factors, the balance of the equities and public interest, also weigh 20 heavily in favor of granting temporary relief. “[T]he public has a strong interest in upholding 21 procedural protections against unlawful detention, and the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the 22 costs to the public of immigration detention are staggering.” Jorge M. F. v. Wilkinson, No. 21-cv- 23 01434-JST, 2021 WL 783561, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) (cleaned up); see Melendres, 695 24 F.3d at 1002 (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s 25 constitutional rights.” (quotation omitted)); Preminger v. Principi, 422 F.3d 815, 826 (9th Cir. 26 2005) (“Generally, public interest concerns are implicated when a constitutional right has been 27 violated, because all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.”). As other courts in this 1 Ruiz] is significant, while the potential harm to the government is minimal.” Order at 5, Pablo 2 Sequen, No. 25-cv-06487-PCP. At most, the government faces a short delay in detaining Caicedo 3 Ruiz if it ultimately demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that his detention is 4 necessary to prevent danger to the community or flight. See Jorge M. F., 2021 WL 783561, at *3; 5 Diaz v. Kaiser, No. 3:25-cv-05071, 2025 WL 1676854 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2025). The 6 government is not “harmed in any legally cognizable sense by being enjoined from constitutional 7 violations.” Zepeda v. U.S. Immigr. & Nat. Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “Faced with 8 . . . a conflict between minimally costly procedures and preventable human suffering, [the Court 9 has] little difficulty concluding that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in plaintiffs’ favor.” 10 Singh v. Andrews, No. 25-cv-00801, 2025 WL 1918679, at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2025) (quoting 11 Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 996) (cleaned up). 12 A TRO immediately releasing Caicedo Ruiz is appropriate here to return him to the status 13 quo. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 932 F.3d at 779. The status quo refers to “the last uncontested 14 status which preceded the pending controversy.” Doe v. Noem, No. 25-cv-00633, 2025 WL 15 1141279, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2025) (citing GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 16 1199, 1210 (9th Cir. 2000)). That is the moment prior to his likely illegal detention. See 17 Kuzmenko v. Phillips, No. 25-cv-00663, 2025 WL 779743, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025) 18 (granting a temporary restraining order requiring immediate release of the petitioner back to home 19 confinement from custody, as a restoration of the status quo). 20 Because Caicedo Ruiz satisfies all requirements for temporary injunctive relief and such 21 relief is necessary to restore the status quo, the TRO Motion is granted as detailed below. This 22 Order accords with many other recent grants of temporary relief in similar circumstances. See, 23 e.g., Garro Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-05632, 2025 WL 1853763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 4, 2025) 24 (granting temporary restraining order requiring release of asylum seeker and a pre-detention bond 25 hearing before re-arrest), converted to preliminary injunction at __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 26 2084921 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2025); Singh, 2025 WL 1918679, at *10 (granting preliminary 27 injunction); Doe v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-647-DJC-DMC, 2025 WL 691664, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1 temporary restraining order requiring pre-detention hearing before re-detention of noncitizen out 2 of custody five years); Garcia v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-5070, 2025 WL 1676855, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 3 14, 2025) (granting temporary restraining order requiring pre-detention hearing before re- 4 detention of noncitizen out of custody six years ); Enamorado v. Kaiser, No. 25-cv-4072-NW, 5 2025 WL 1382859, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2025). 6 Because “there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the [Respondents] from enjoining 7 [their] conduct.” Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003), no security is needed 8 to ensure that Respondents will be reimbursed for “costs and damages sustained by . . . hav[ing] 9 been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The Court exercises its discretion 10 under Rule 65(c) to dispense with the filing of bond. Jorgensen, 320 F.3d at 919. 11 IV. ORDER 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion 13 for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED to preserve the status quo pending further 14 briefing and a hearing on this matter. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release 15 Caicedo Ruiz from Respondents’ custody and ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re- 16 detaining Caicedo Ruiz without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral 17 decisionmaker, and from removing him from the United States.1 This Order shall remain in effect 18 until Sunday, August 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. 19 The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and this 20 Order SHALL be served on Respondents such that they receive actual notice as soon as 21 practicable, and Petitioner shall file proof of such service by no later than Wednesday, August 6, 22 2025. Respondents shall provide a status report confirming Caicedo Ruiz’s release by Tuesday, 23 August 5, 2025. 24 25 1 Petitioner also asks the Court to order that Caicedo Ruiz remain within the Northern District of 26 California in order to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction, but it is well-established that “when the Government moves a habeas petitioner after she properly files a petition naming her immediate 27 custodian, the District Court retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within 1 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in-person at a hearing in the courtroom 2 || of the assigned Judge, or as otherwise ordered by that Judge, on Friday, August 15, 2025, at 1:00 3 |} p.m. why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Respondents shall file a response to 4 || Petitioner’s motion by no later than Friday, August 8, 2025. Any reply shall be filed by 5 Tuesday, August 12, 2025. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 3, 2025 8 9 Eumi K. Lee 0 United States District Judge 11 12
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28