Samson C.C. v. David Easterwood, et al.

D. Minnesota

Samson C.C. v. David Easterwood, et al.

District Court, D. Minnesota·Decided August 11, 2026·No. 0:26-cv-03588·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Samson C.C., Case No. 26-cv-3588 (KMM/DTS)

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

David Easterwood, et al.,

Respondents.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Samson C.C.’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 4) seeking to prevent Respondents from transferring him outside the District of Minnesota and to a third country before he receives the due process Petitioner alleges he is entitled to under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and federal regulations. The Court grants the Motion in part and temporarily enjoins his transfer out of Minnesota. The Court has previously considered many of the same issues raised by these circumstances in similar cases before the Court. The Court hereby grants an initial temporary restraining order to enable the parties to fully brief Petitioner’s Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). The Court observes that, at least preliminarily, it likely has jurisdiction to address this issue in light of binding Eighth Circuit precedent. See Jama v. I.N.S., 329 F.3d 630, 632 (8th Cir. 2003), aff’d in relevant part, 543 U.S. 335 (2005). While there are important questions to be addressed regarding jurisdiction, whether habeas is the proper vehicle for this relief, and the merits, the balance of equities weighs overwhelmingly in favor of the Petitioner. Specifically, if a TRO is not granted, the Petitioner might be removed to a third country

without necessary due process, and be beyond the reach of the Court for a remedy. If the removal is temporarily stayed, the Court struggles to see such a delay as risking irreparable harm to the interest of the government. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondents are TEMPORARILY ENJOINED from removing the Petitioner out of the United States pending briefing on Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 2. Counsel must meet and confer immediately about an expedited briefing schedule for Petitioner’s forthcoming TRO motion.

Dated: August 11, 2026 s/Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Samson C.C., Case No. 26-cv-3588 (KMM/DTS)

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

David Easterwood, et al.,

Respondents.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Samson C.C.’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 4) seeking to prevent Respondents from transferring him outside the District of Minnesota and to a third country before he receives the due process Petitioner alleges he is entitled to under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and federal regulations. The Court grants the Motion in part and temporarily enjoins his transfer out of Minnesota. The Court has previously considered many of the same issues raised by these circumstances in similar cases before the Court. The Court hereby grants an initial temporary restraining order to enable the parties to fully brief Petitioner’s Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). The Court observes that, at least preliminarily, it likely has jurisdiction to address this issue in light of binding Eighth Circuit precedent. See Jama v. I.N.S., 329 F.3d 630, 632 (8th Cir. 2003), aff’d in relevant part, 543 U.S. 335 (2005). While there are important questions to be addressed regarding jurisdiction, whether habeas is the proper vehicle for this relief, and the merits, the balance of equities weighs overwhelmingly in favor of the Petitioner. Specifically, if a TRO is not granted, the Petitioner might be removed to a third country

without necessary due process, and be beyond the reach of the Court for a remedy. If the removal is temporarily stayed, the Court struggles to see such a delay as risking irreparable harm to the interest of the government. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondents are TEMPORARILY ENJOINED from removing the Petitioner out of the United States pending briefing on Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 2. Counsel must meet and confer immediately about an expedited briefing schedule for Petitioner’s forthcoming TRO motion.

Dated: August 11, 2026 s/Katherine M. Menendez Katherine M. Menendez United States District Judge

Samson C.C. v. David Easterwood, et al., (mnd 2026).

Pincite

Samson C.C. v. David Easterwood, et al. (Samson C.C. v. David Easterwood, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related