Timaran Restrepo v. Warden et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
VALENTINA TIMARAN RESTREPO, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-661-G
)
WARDEN, Diamondback 	)
Correctional Facility, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Valentina Timaran Restrepo, appearing pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition,” Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her
detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.1 Petitioner is in custody at the
Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma. Id. at 3.
Now 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Petitioner’s Amended 	Emergency Application 	for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 4).
In her Amended Emergency Application, Petitioner describes that she underwent
“multiple invasive surgical procedures” on November 6, 2025. Id. at 3; Pet’r’s Decl. (Doc.
No. 2) ¶ 7; see also Pet. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 1-1) at 9-12. 	The “surgeries require strict and
continuous post-operative monitoring to prevent severe complications.” Id.; Pet’r’s Decl.
¶ 8.
1 Petitioner identifies the respondents as the Warden of the Diamondback Correctional
Facility; the Field Office Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
Dallas Field Office; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. ICE; Kristi Noem, Secretary of
Homeland Security; and Pamela Jo Bondi, U.S. Attorney General. Pet. at 1.
Case 5:26-cv-00661-G Document 7 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 7

2
On February 4, 2026, Petitioner was “taken into ICE custody while attending one
of her regularly scheduled check-in appointments.” 	Id. 	She has remained in detention
since then. Id.
“Approximately two to three weeks ago,” Petitioner “developed an abnormal and
painful mass in her abdominal area” at “the precise location of her prior surgeries.” 	Id.;
Pet’r’s Decl. ¶ 9. Since that time, the mass has been “progressively and visibly growing.”
Id. (emphasis omitted); Pet’r’s Decl. ¶ 10. 	Petitioner is in “8 out of 10” “severe and
constant pain” that “worsen[s] daily.” Id.; Pet’r’s Decl. ¶ 11.
According to Petitioner, she has been “taken to the emergency medical unit” at the
detention facility “on a near-daily basis.” Id. (emphasis omitted); Pet’r’s Decl. ¶ 13.
On March 27, 2026, “medical staff at the facility ordered an ‘urgent’ ultrasound to
diagnose the mass.” 	Id. (emphasis omitted). 	But the ultrasound “requires an ‘external
approval’ that had not been obtained.” Id. Because of this, Petitioner was informed that it
“may take up to one month to receive further medical response or treatment.” Pet’r’s Decl.
¶ 17. 	Petitioner had not received the ultrasound at the time the Application was filed.
Pet’r’s Am. Em. Appl. at 3.
Petitioner seeks emergency injunctive relief because she argues that waiting one
month “is medically untenable” and she believes she is at risk of “life-altering damage.”
Id. at 4.
Case 5:26-cv-00661-G Document 7 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 7

3
I. 	Standards of Review
As explained by the Tenth Circuit,
Ordinarily, a movant seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the
movant if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant
outweighs the injury to the party opposing the preliminary injunction; and
(4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. 	Because a
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant’s right to
relief must be clear and unequivocal.
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.
2001) (citation omitted). 	These four requirements apply equally to a request for a
temporary restraining order (or “TRO”). See Wiechmann v. Ritter, 44 F. App’x 346, 347
(10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Terry, No. CIV-19-250-SLP, 2019 WL 7753271, at *1
(W.D. Okla. Mar. 26, 2019).
Petitioner’s request for a TRO is also governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 65(b)(1) prescribes that the Court may enter a temporary restraining
order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if (1) “specific facts in an
affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss,
or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition”;
and (2) “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A), (B). 2
2 Petitioner has sufficiently complied with Rule 65(b)(1)(B)’s requirement to describe why
notice “should not be required.” See Pet’r’s Am. Em. Appl. at 8.
Case 5:26-cv-00661-G Document 7 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 7

4
II. 	Discussion
a. 	Likelihood of success on the merits
“Federal immigration detention is a form of civil (not criminal) detention that must
comply with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Essien v. Barr, 457 F. Supp. 3d
1008, 1014 (D. Colo. 2020) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001)). Due to
its civil nature, this detention must be “nonpunitive in purpose and effect.” Id.
Petitioner argues that Respondents’ awareness of the urgency of her medical
condition and their failure to ensure the ultrasound is administered “urgent[ly]” as required
effectively turn her “regulatory detention into unconstitutional punishment.” 	See Pet’r’s
Am. Em. Appl. at 6.
Based on the record before the Court, Petitioner, at this stage, has shown that she is
likely to succeed on the merits of showing that her detention is in violation of the Fifth
Amendment.
b. 	Irreparable Injury to Petitioner
Petitioner describes that the recently appearing abdominal mass at the location of
her prior surgeries is “increasing in size” and accompanied by “pressure, swelling,
hardening of the abdominal area, and significant discomfort with movement and sitting.”
Pet’r’s Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12. Petitioner also describes significant and worsening pain. Id. ¶ 11.
Based on the present record, the need for an “urgent” ultrasound to “evaluate the
mass” and diagnose Petitioner’s condition has been determined by facility staff to be
necessary but delayed by the need for external approval. See id. ¶ 14.
Based on these descriptions, Petitioner has “demonstrate[d] that irreparable injury
Case 5:26-cv-00661-G Document 7 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 7

5
is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 22 (2008)).
c. 	Balance of the Equities, and the Public Interest
The third and fourth elements of the analysis “merge when the Government is the
opposing party.” 	Nexstar Media, Inc. v. Walters, 776 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1060 n.3 (W.D.
Okla. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435
(2009)).
According to the Supreme Court,
Congress has authorized immigration officials to detain some classes of
aliens during the course of certain immigration proceedings. 	Detention
during those proceedings gives immigration officials time to determine an
alien’s status without running the risk of the alien’s either absconding or
engaging in criminal activity before a final decision can be made.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 285 (2018).
Accordingly, 	the 	Government’s 	interest 	in 	detaining 	Petitioner 	is 	to 	ensure
Petitioner’s presence as the immigration process proceeds. Petitioner argues that, as here,
when her life is in danger, the burden on Respondents is “minimal to non-existent.” 	See
Pet’r’s Am. Em. Appl. at 7.
As explained below, the tailored relief ordered by the Court does not impair
Respondents’ detention of Petitioner, so the equities weigh in Petitioner’s favor.
Finally, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s
constitutional rights.” 	Nexstar Media, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1060 (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Case 5:26-cv-00661-G Document 7 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 7

6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Amended Emergency Application for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED as follows:
1. 	Respondents 	are 	directed 	to 	immediately 	provide 	to 	Petitioner 	all
medically necessary treatment, including an ultrasound examination of
Petitioner’s abdomen, either at the Diamondback Correctional Facility or
at an otherwise suitable medical facility. Respondents are further directed
to provide to Petitioner any additional treatment that the examining
medical provider determines is necessary as a result of that examination,
within a reasonable time period based on the advice of the medical
provider.
2. 	If Respondents determine that further medical care is not warranted,
Respondents are permitted to seek relief from this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(4).
IT IS ORDERED that Respondents shall provide Petitioner a copy of this Order no
later than April 2, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a brief addressing the facts
alleged in Petitioner’s Amended Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order
(Doc. No. 4) and the present circumstances of Petitioner’s medical care no later than 3 p.m.
on April 2, 2026.
No security bond is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The terms
of this Order shall remain in place until April 15, 2026, unless otherwise ordered by the
Court.
Petitioner’s Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 3)
is DENIED as moot.
In accordance with the agreement between the Clerk of Court and the United States
Case 5:26-cv-00661-G Document 7 Filed 04/01/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, the Clerk of Court is directed to send copies
of each filing entered in this matter as of the date of this Order via email to the United
States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma for acceptance on behalf of
Respondents.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00661-G Document 7 Filed 04/01/26 Page 7 of 7