Esteban Quiroga-Chaparro v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ESTEBAN QUIROGA-CHAPARRO, No. 1:25-cv-1731 AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents.

17 On December 31, 2025, the court issued an order granting petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and directed respondents to release petitioner from their custody.

19 ECF No. 14. Respondents were also ordered to show cause why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction on the same terms as the temporary restraining order. Id. Respondents have not filed any response to the order to show cause and their time to do so has passed.1 Because the standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court finds petitioner has sufficiently shown that all four Winter2 factors weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief for the same reasons as those Respondents were also ordered to file a status report confirming petitioner’s release but have failed to do so. However, petitioner has filed a response confirming he has been released from custody. ECF No. 15.

28 2 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

1 | stated in the order granting a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 14).

2 Furthermore, though the petition is currently fully briefed, as the court noted in the order || granting the temporary restraining order, petitioner raised an additional claim in motion that was | not raised in the petition. ECF No. 14 at 3 n.4. Petitioner will therefore be required to notify the || court whether he intends to amend the petition.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. A preliminary injunction shall issue on the same terms as set forth in the temporary | restraining order (ECF No. 14).

9 2. Having released petitioner as required by the temporary restraining order, respondents || shall not impose any additional restrictions on petitioner unless such restrictions are determined to || be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing.

12 3. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-arresting or re-detaining || petitioner unless they first demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing before | neutral decisionmaker that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his || physical custody is legally justified. Petitioner must be provided at least seven days’ notice prior || to any such pre-deprivation hearing and he shall be allowed to have his counsel present.

17 4. This order shall remain in effect until the resolution of this action or until otherwise || ordered by the court.

19 5. Within seven days of the filing of this order, petitioner shall notify the court whether || he intends to amend the petition. In the event petitioner intends to file an amended petition, || within three days of petitioner filing a notice of his intention, the parties shall meet and confer for || the purpose of submitting a joint proposed briefing schedule for the amended petition. The || parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule to the court no later than seven days from || the date of the notice.

25 || DATED: January 7, 2026 . ~ 26 Cttierr— Clare 7 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE