1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RODRIGO A. PAZ HERNANDEZ, No. 1:25-cv-00986-KES-CDB (HC) 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 11 v. INJUNCTION 12 MINGA WOFFORD, Field Office Director, Docs. 4, 13, 14 Mesa Verde, Office of Detention and 13 Removal, POLLY KAISER, Acting Field Office Director of the San Francisco 14 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office, TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director 15 of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of 16 the United States Department of Homeland Security, and PAMELA BONDI, Attorney 17 General of the United States, 18 Respondents. 19 20 I. Background 21 This case concerns the detention of petitioner Rodrigo A. Paz Hernandez, a noncitizen 22 who has been in immigration removal proceedings since May 2024. Petitioner was briefly 23 detained upon his entry into the United States in May 2024 but was then released after 24 immigration officials determined that he was not a flight risk or danger to the community. 25 Notwithstanding that determination—and despite the fact that petitioner maintained a clean 26 criminal record, appeared for all required check-ins and hearings with immigration authorities, 27 and complied with all conditions of his release—Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 28 agents re-detained petitioner in the hallway of the San Francisco Immigration Court as he exited a 1 scheduled hearing in his immigration case.1 Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas 2 corpus and a motion for temporary restraining order with this Court. Docs. 1, 4. 3 After respondents filed an opposition and petitioner filed a reply, see Docs. 10, 12, the 4 Court granted petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order on August 21, 2025, Doc. 13. 5 The Court found that petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that his re- 6 detention without a bond hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, that 7 petitioner faced irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order, and that the balance of 8 equities and public interest weighed in petitioner’s favor. See Doc. 13. Therefore, to return the 9 parties to the status quo ante, the Court ordered that respondents release petitioner and not re- 10 detain him without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the 11 government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or danger 12 to the community. See id. The Court further ordered respondents to show cause why a 13 preliminary injunction should not issue pending a final disposition of this matter. Id. 14 II. Discussion 15 On August 28, 2025, respondents filed a response to the order to show cause that largely 16 relies on and incorporates by reference the arguments they made in their prior brief. See Doc. 14 17 at 3. Respondents argue that the temporary restraining order “should be dissolved instead of 18 being converted into a preliminary injunction for the reasons stated in [their prior] opposition 19 brief.” Id. In the alternative, respondents argue that the injunction be narrowly limited so as not 20 to interfere with their “authority to execute removal orders,” citing

(a)(2) 21 and 1252.

22 For the reasons stated in the Court’s order granting petitioner’s motion for temporary 23 restraining order, see Doc. 13, the Court finds respondents’ arguments unpersuasive and finds that 24 petitioner has shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, that he is likely to 25 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities is in his 26 1 A more detailed factual background is contained in the Court’s order granting motion for 27 temporary restraining order. Doc. 13 at 2–4. The parties have not presented any additional factual evidence, and it is not necessary to repeat here the relevant facts as set out in the Court’s 28 prior order. 1 | favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 2 |

(2008). The Court finds that petitioner is entitled to a preliminary injunction that 3 | bars his re-detention without a bond hearing at which the government must prove by clear and 4 | convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community. 5 To the extent respondents request that the preliminary injunction cease to apply once a 6 | final order of removal is issued, see Doc. 14 at 3, that request is denied. The government appears 7 | to argue that requiring a pre-deprivation bond hearing before petitioner may be re-detained would 8 | impermissibly intrude on the agency’s execution of any final order of removal that may 9 | subsequently be issued, but that is incorrect. This Order does not address the agency’s execution 10 | of any final order of removal; this Order concerns petitioner’s right to a pre-deprivation bond 11 | hearing before respondents may re-detain him pending his removal proceedings, including 12 || pending any appeal that may occur after a final order of removal is issued. 13 II. Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order, Doc. 4, is converted to a 15 || motion for preliminary injunction and is GRANTED. Respondents may not re-detain petitioner 16 || without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the government must 17 | prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community 18 | such that his physical custody is required. 19 29 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 21 Dated: _ September 10, 2025 4h 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28