(HC) Nguyen Tran v. Chestnut et al

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
QUAN NGUYEN TRAN,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:25-cv-01816-DAD-JDP
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(Doc. No. 8)
On January 5, 2026, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No.
8.) On January 8, 2026, respondents filed their opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 11.)
In that opposition, respondents argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) applies here. (Id. at 3.)
However, because petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, the court concludes that
§ 1226(c) does not apply. Avilez v. Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 530, 537 (9th Cir. 2023) (finding that
§ 1226(c) applies during the administrative and judicial review phases of removal proceedings,
whereas “Section 1231(a) applies to detention after the entry of a final order of removal”). Next,
respondents argue that § 1231(a)(6) applies and that a memorandum of understanding with the
Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security constitutes a change in circumstances justifying
petitioner’s re-detention. (Doc. No. 11 at 4–5.) Even if § 1231(a)(6) were to apply and there
were to be a change in circumstances as to petitioner, petitioner claims, and respondents do not
Case 1:25-cv-01816-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/10/26 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
dispute, that petitioner was detained without notice of the reasons for petitioner’s re-detention.
(Doc. No. 8 at 4.) The court is persuaded by the analysis in Gregorio Ordonez v. Bondi, et al.,
No. 2:25-cv-02356-JHC-TLF, 2025 WL 3852444 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2025), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Gregorio Ordonez v. Bondi, No. 2:25-cv-02356-JHC-TLF,
2026 WL 30022 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2026), where the district court found that under such
circumstances, the respondents had violated applicable regulations and petitioner’s due process
rights. Id. at *3–*9.
Accordingly,
1. Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED as
follows:
a. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release petitioner from
respondents’ custody on the same conditions that governed his release
immediately prior to his detention on October 2, 2025;
b. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining
petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without providing
petitioner written notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral
adjudicator;
2. Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner will not be required to post bond
pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
3. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, if possible, submit a joint proposed
briefing schedule and hearing date with respect to any motion for a preliminary
injunction no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2026
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01816-JDP Document 13 Filed 01/10/26 Page 2 of 2