Guzman et al v. Noem et al

1
3:25-cv-3809-CAB-MMP
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MIGUEL GUZMAN and ANTONIO
RODRIGUEZ OROZCO,
Petitioners,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3809-CAB-MMP
ORDER:
(1) DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER [Doc. No. 2]; and
(2) ORDERING RESPONSE.
Petitioner Miguel Guzman 1 filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. 	[Doc. No. 4
(“Amended Petition”).] 	Petitioner also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”). [Doc. No. 2.] Petitioner claims that he is detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the final judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem,
No. 5:25-cv-1873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). [See generally
Amended Petition, TRO.] 	He “seek[s] enforcement of his rights as [a] member[] of the
1 Petitioner Orozco has been released from immigration custody and the Parties have agreed that his
habeas claim is therefore moot. [Amended Petition at 2.]
Case 3:25-cv-03809-CAB-MMP Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-3809-CAB-MMP
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
Bond Denial Class certified in Maldonado Bautista” in the form of an individualized bond
hearing. [Amended Petition at 2; see also TRO at 2–3.]
The Court DENIES the motion for a TRO. The Court’s strong preference is for the
opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. See Granny
Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda
Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and
their “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d
1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same).
The Court instead ORDERS Respondents to notify the Court by January 12, 2026
whether they agree that Petitioner is entitled to an individualized bond hearing. 	If
Respondents do not agree, the Court ORDERS a response to the Amended Petition by
January 14, 2026. The response must address the allegations in the Amended Petition and
must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the
Amended Petition. Petitioner may then file a reply by January 16, 2026.
The Court also provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate Petitioner’s
request for injunctive relief with a determination on the merits of the habeas petition under
Rule 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t
of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule
65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous notice”).
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-03809-CAB-MMP Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-3809-CAB-MMP
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
Finally, to maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, 	attorneys, 	and 	other 	persons 	who 	act 	in 	concert 	or 	participation 	with
Respondents 	SHALL NOT transfer 	Petitioner 	outside 	of 	the 	Southern 	District 	of
California pending the Court’s resolution of the Amended Petition.2
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026
2 See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)
(“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have]
subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”)
(collecting cases).
Case 3:25-cv-03809-CAB-MMP Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3