Yesica L. Boza v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03526
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Yesica L. BOZA, Case No.: 25-cv-3526-AGS-SBC 4 Plaintiff ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 5 v. ORDER (ECF 2) 6 Pamela BONDI, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Yesica Boza requests a temporary restraining order precluding defendants 10 “from detaining her” at her “adjustment of status interview” tomorrow (“December 16, 11 2025”). (ECF 2, at 2–3.) Because Boza fails to establish that she is likely to suffer imminent 12 harm, her motion is denied. 13 Rather than contend with the merits of the claim, defendants assert that “the Court 14 lacks jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order,” because plaintiffs have not 15 properly “[s]erved” defendants. (ECF 5, at 2.) After all, service is typically a precondition 16 to exercising personal jurisdiction. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 17 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party officially, and is required to 18 take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons”). Some courts hold that, until 19 service is complete, the Court may not order emergency injunctive relief. See Zepeda v. 20 I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has 21 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may 22 not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). Yet others, relying 23 on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, conclude that “a district court may issue a 24 temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party if, among 25 other things, plaintiff ‘certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons 26 why it should not be required.’” Camargo Alejo v. Vista Det. Facility, No. 3:25-cv-0258- 27 AGS-JLB, 2025 WL 2084925, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 65(b)(1)); see also Security & Exch. Comm’n v. MCC Int’l Corp., No. 22-12281, 2024 WL 1 1508281, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) (holding that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 65(a) does not require service of process” (cleaned up)). The Court need not decide the 3 question today, however, as plaintiff has not met her burden to justify a temporary 4 restraining order. 5 Turning to the merits, a temporary restraining order, like all injunctive relief, is “an 6 extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 7 entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 8 Boza must clearly demonstrate that: (1) “[s]he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “[s]he 9 is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance 10 of equities tips in [her] favor”; and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20; 11 see also Synopsys, Inc. v. AzurEngine Techs., 401 F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1072 (S.D. Cal. 2019) 12 (“The standard for obtaining a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 13 obtaining a preliminary injunction, with the primary difference being [timing].”). 14 Plaintiff has not shown that she “is likely to suffer . . . harm in the absence of 15 preliminary relief.” See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (emphasis added). She asserts that when 16 “Adjustment of Status Applicants,” like plaintiff, “admit[] under oath to overstaying [their] 17 non-immigrant visa,” United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ “San Diego 18 Field office has started [a] practice” of “referring” them “to Immigration and Customs 19 Enforcement in the middle of their interview.” (ECF 2, at 3, 5.) Beyond this general 20 allegation, she does not cite to any policies, practices, or communications from defendants 21 clearly demonstrating that this is likely to happen to plaintiff. (See generally ECF 1.) And 22 “[i]ssuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is 23 inconsistent with [the] characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that 24 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 25 Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Thus, without more concrete facts about the likelihood of her 26 detention, the court cannot enjoin defendants. 27 The motion for temporary restraining order (ECF 2) is DENIED. 28 1 Dated: December 15, 2025

3 Hon. rew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28