1:25-cv-01731•(HC) Quiroga-Chaparro v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.
(HC) Quiroga-Chaparro v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.
1:25-cv-01731CaedJan 8, 2026
Full text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ESTEBAN QUIROGA-CHAPARRO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents. No. 1:25-cv-1731 AC ORDER 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. 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 1 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. 2 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Case 1:25-cv-01731-AC Document 16 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 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 25 26 27 28 2 stated in the order granting a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 14). 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. A preliminary injunction shall issue on the same terms as set forth in the temporary restraining order (ECF No. 14). 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. 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 a 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. 4. This order shall remain in effect until the resolution of this action or until otherwise ordered by the court. 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. DATED: January 7, 2026 Case 1:25-cv-01731-AC Document 16 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.