Perez v. Bondi et al

1
25-cv-3820-AGS-MSB
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
Fidel FLORES PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3820-AGS-MSB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CORRECT LEGAL NAME (ECF 12),
PROVISIONALLY GRANTING
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(ECF 13), DENYING MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE RELIEF (ECF 14), AND
VACATING RESPONSE DEADLINES
AND HEARING DATE
Unrepresented petitioner Fidel Flores Perez has filed a series of motions in support
of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. First, he requests that
this Court modify the docket to indicate his correct legal name is “Fidel Flores Perez”
instead of “Fidel Florez Perez.” (See ECF 12.) That request is granted, and the Clerk is
directed to update the docket accordingly.
He also seeks appointment of counsel. (See ECF 13.) That motion is provisionally
granted under Chief Judge Order 134. The Court provisionally appoints Federal Defenders
of San Diego, Inc., to initially determine if he qualifies for representation by that
organization. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to Federal Defenders.
By January 30, 2026, Federal Defenders must submit a notice to the Court
concerning whether it can and will accept the appointment. By that same date, Federal
Defenders must also state whether, under Chief Judge Order 134, it “requests to file
supplemental briefing.” As a result, the current briefing schedule and hearing date are
vacated and will be reset once the Court hears from counsel.
In his final request, Flores Perez seeks “immediate release from ICE custody” by
way of a temporary restraining order. (ECF 14, at 4.) A temporary restraining order is a
form of emergency injunctive relief without notice to the other side. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
Such emergency relief is “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v.
Case 3:25-cv-03820-AGS-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
25-cv-3820-AGS-MSB
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
Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Under the Winter test, plaintiffs seeking
such relief must establish that: (1) they are “likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) they are
“likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “the balance of
equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20;
see also Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he legal standards
applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially identical.” (cleaned up)).
The most important of these factors is the first, and “if a movant fails to meet the threshold
inquiry of likelihood of success on the merits (or serious questions going to them), a court
may 	decide” 	the 	motion 	“without 	considering 	the 	other 	factors.” 	Diamond 	Sands
Apartments, LLC v. Clark Cnty. Nevada, ___ F.4th ____, No. 25-2884, 2026 WL 121202,
at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026). Here, Flores Perez offers no evidence, or even argument, that
he is likely to be successful in his habeas petition. (See generally ECF 14.) Without meeting
that “threshold inquiry,” his motion is denied.
Dated: January 20, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03820-AGS-MSB Document 15 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2