Veronica V.O. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Veronica V.O. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VERONICA V.O.1,

12 Petitioner, No. 1:25-cv-01796-TLN-JDP

13 14 v. ORDER KRISTI NOEM, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 On December 18, 2025, the Court granted Petitioner Veronica V.O.’s (“Petitioner”) 19 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and ordered Respondents to show cause why 20 this Court should not convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 10.) On 21 December 19, 2025, Respondents filed a statement of non-opposition. (ECF No. 13.) 22 /// 23 /// 24 1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of 25 the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court omits Petitioner’s full name, using only her first name and last initials, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum Re: 26 Privacy Concern Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court 27 Administration and Case Management, Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-suggestion_cacm_0.pdf. The Clerk of Court 28 is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect only Petitioner’s first name and last initials. 1 In light of Respondents’ non-opposition, and because the standard for issuing a TRO is 2 | “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, see Stuhlbarg Int'l 3 | Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.,

240 F.3d 832

, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court GRANTS a 4 | preliminary injunction for the same reasons as stated in this Court’s prior order (ECF No. 10), as 5 | follows: 6 1. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner until 7 they follow all procedures set forth in 8 C.F.R $§ 241.4), 241.13) and any other 8 applicable statutory and regulatory procedures. 9 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint status 10 report addressing the parties’ plan to proceed with this action. The joint status report ll should address, at minimum, the date and conditions of Petitioner’s release, whether 12 parties believe the habeas petition is moot, and whether parties anticipate any further 13 motions practice. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect only Petitioner’s first 15 name and last initials. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Date: December 29, 2025 7, 18 19 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown