Prem S. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PREM S., 12 Petitioner, No. 1:25-cv-01869-TLN-SCR 14 v. ORDER WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY et al., Respondents.

18 On December 24, 2025, the Court granted Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order1 (“TRO”) and ordered Respondents to show cause by January 5, 2026, why this Court should not issue a preliminary injunction on the same terms. (ECF No. 7.) Following the Court’s Order, Respondents filed notices of compliance confirming Petitioner was released at 8:03 p.m. on December 24, 2025. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) On January 7, 2026 –– two days after the deadline imposed by the Court –– Respondents filed a notice of non-opposition. (ECF No. 14.)

24 In light of Respondents non-opposition and because the standard for issuing a TRO is “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Petitioner originally filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 1.)

27 Based on the substance of the petition and the relief requested therein, the Court liberally construed the petition as a motion for a TRO. (ECF No. 3); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 28 89, 94 (2007).

1 | Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court ISSUES a | preliminary injunction for the same reasons as stated in this Court’s prior order (ECF No. 10), as | follows: 4 1. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining 5 Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, including seven-days’ notice 6 and a hearing before a neutral fact-finder where Respondents show: (a) there are material 7 changed circumstances which demonstrate that there is a significant likelihood of 8 Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, or (b) Respondents demonstrate 9 by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a 10 flight risk. At any such hearing, Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present.

11 2. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint status report 12 addressing the parties’ plan to proceed with this action. The joint status report should 13 address, at minimum, whether parties anticipate any motions practice and whether parties 14 believe the habeas petition is moot.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 | Date: January 7, 2026 Z, 18 TROY L. NUNLEY 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE