1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAROLAINE MONTEIRO DE SOUZA, No. 1:25-cv-01597-DJC-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 TIMOTHY S. ROBBINS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On November 23, 2025, this Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary 19 Restraining Order and directed Respondents to release Petitioner from their custody. 20 The Court also ordered Respondents to show cause, in writing, as to why this Court 21 should not issue a preliminary injunction on the same terms as the Temporary 22 Restraining Order. Respondents continue to oppose the issuance of a preliminary 23 injunction for the same reasons listed in their opposition to the temporary restraining 24 order (Response (ECF No. 12)). Further, Respondents submitted a declaration from 25 Deportation Officer Gwendolyn Ng now alleging that Petitioner was detained by ICE 26 after she failed to appear for two scheduled check ins on January 28, 2025, and June 27 3, 2025. (Supp. (ECF No. 13) ¶ 7.) As a result, Respondents argue that Petitioner’s 28 1 detention on October 20, 2025, was pursuant to INA § 235(b)(1).1 (Id.) Petitioner filed 2 a Reply submitting the matter on her pleadings (Reply (ECF No. 14)). 3 The supplemental information does not materially alter the Court’s prior 4 analysis as to Petitioner’s due process rights. The record presently before the Court 5 indicates that the Government treated Petitioner pursuant to the framework under 8

(a). “Having elected to proceed with full removal proceedings under 7 [section] 1226, Respondents cannot now reverse course and institute [section] 1225 8 expedited removal proceedings.” See Ramirez Clavijo v. Kaiser, No. 5:25-cv-06249- 9 BLF,

, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025). Moreover, once a person has 10 been placed in full removal proceedings under section 1226, she cannot thereafter be 11 detained under § 1225. See id. (rejecting the idea that DHS may elect to pursue 12 mandatory detention under section 1225(b) at any time). The question of whether 13 Petitioner missed her check ins appears to be in dispute. (Compare (ECF No. 2 at 2) 14 stating Petitioner “complied with what was asked of her” since her release on parole; 15 with Supp. ¶ 7 stating that Petitioner missed two scheduled check ins.) To the extent 16 the alleged missed check ins constitute a sufficiently changed circumstance such that 17 detention is warranted, that is a matter for a pre-deprivation hearing. 18 Thus, for the reasons discussed in the Court’s order granting a temporary 19 restraining order (see ECF No. 10), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 20 1. The Court GRANTS the request for a Preliminary Injunction. 21 2. Having released Petitioner as required by the Temporary Restraining Order, 22 Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on her, such as 23 electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future 24 pre-deprivation custody/hearing. 25 3. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re- 26 detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections,

27 1 Section 235 is codified at

. Rico-Tapia v. Smith, ---- F. Supp. 3d ----,

, 28 at *2 n.8 (D. Haw. Oct. 10, 2025). 1 which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice — describing the 2 change of circumstances necessitating arrest — and detention, and a timely 3 hearing. At any such hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of 4 establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a 5 danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner shall be allowed 6 to have her counsel present. 7 4. This Order shall remain in effect until the resolution of this action or until 8 otherwise ordered by the Court. 9 5. This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pre- 10 trial proceedings. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _December 8, 2025 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 | DJCé - DESOUZA25cv01597.pi_v1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28