Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv1142
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
CHYNGYZ ZHUNUEV,
Petitioner,
v.
SIDNEY AKI, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP
ORDER:
(1) 	REQUIRING THE
GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1);
(2) 	SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (ECF No. 2); AND
(3) 	PROVIDING NOTICE UNDER
RULE 65(a)(2)
Petitioner Chyngyz Zhunuev filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	Petitioner alleges he is being detained by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Id.)
In addition, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining
Order (“Motion for Injunctive Relief”). (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner asks the Court to order
immediate release. (Id.)
Case 3:26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP Document 3 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv1142
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
Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted
at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary
dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,
palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). 	Therefore, the Court will order the
Government to respond to the Petition.
Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court denies the ex parte request for
a temporary restraining order. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 	“While temporary restraining
orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the
Court will do so only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court’s strong preference is for
the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an
opposition.” 	Standing Order for Civil Cases § 9; see also 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). Thus, the Court will instead consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief
under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond.
Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the
Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits 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”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for
Injunctive Relief no later than March 4, 2026. The Government’s response must address
the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the determination
of the issues raised in the Petition.
2. 	Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition and the Motion for
Injunctive Relief no later than March 11, 2026.
Case 3:26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP Document 3 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv1142
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
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No.
2), and this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 24, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP Document 3 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3