Zambrano Vivas v. Unknown Party et al

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND AMENDING THE
SCHEDULING ORDER - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
JESUS ARMANDO ZAMBRANO VIVAS,
Petitioner(s),
v.
WARDEN NORTHWEST ICE
PROCESSING CENTER, et al.,
Respondent(s).
CASE NO. C26-1011-KKE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND AMENDING THE SCHEDULING
ORDER
Petitioner, representing himself, previously filed a motion for temporary restraining order
along with his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. The Court terminated that motion
because he filed the motion before he had paid the case filing fee or filed an application for a fee
waiver. Dkt. No. 4.
Now that Petitioner has paid the filing fee, the motion for temporary restraining order has
been reactivated and the Court now DENIES it. Dkt. No. 2. Petitioner’s motion requests that the
Court stay Petitioner’s removal while his habeas petition is pending, but he has not shown that he
is entitled to this extraordinary relief. Parties seeking a TRO must show: (1) that they are likely to
succeed on the merits, (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief,
(3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) that an injunction serves the public
interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Case 2:26-cv-02635-DWL--CDB Document 7 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 2

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND AMENDING THE
SCHEDULING ORDER - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Here, although Petitioner contends that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if he is
removed while his petition is pending, the Court’s scheduling order requires the Government to
provide notice before any removal or transfer. 	See Dkt. No. 6. 	The Court finds that this order
provides adequate protection against imminent, irreparable harm in the form of transfer or removal
while the petition is pending.
Moreover, because Petitioner is representing himself and filing and receiving materials by
mail, the Court AMENDS the scheduling order (Dkt. No. 6) in the following respects to allow him
sufficient time to file a reply and receive notice:
1. 	Petitioner’s reply deadline of April 22, 2026, is EXTENDED to May 6, 2026. 	The
Government shall note its response for May 6, 2026.
2. 	The Government shall provide Petitioner notice one week (168 hours) before any action
to move or transfer him from the Western District of Washington or to remove him
from the United States. Any such notice shall be filed on the docket.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2026.
A
Kymberly K. Evanson
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-02635-DWL--CDB Document 7 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 2