De La Garza v. Albarran 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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARLOS ALBERTO DE LA GARZA,
Petitioner,
v.
SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 25-cv-10305-HSG
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Petitioner Carlos Alberto De La Garza previously moved the Court for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) that would, among other things, require his immediate release from
ongoing detention by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and prohibit ICE
from re-arresting him without notice and a pre-detention bond hearing. See Dkt. No. 8. The Court
granted the motion for a TRO in part. See Dkt. No. 11. In doing so, the Court ordered
Respondents to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. See id. at 10. In their
supplemental brief, Respondents acknowledged that their opposition to the TRO contained some
factual errors. See Dkt. No. 21; see also Dkt. No. 21-1 (“Jerome Decl.”) at ¶¶ 7–11. Respondents
explained, for example, that after a further investigation, they agree that Petitioner did not state
that he reentered the United States in November 2015, as Respondents had initially reported. See
id. Additionally, Respondents confirmed that at the time of Petitioner’s initial detention, USCIS
had not completed the adjudication of his Form I-485. Id. As a result, Respondents state that they
“do not oppose the entry of a preliminary injunction to enjoin them from redetaining Petitioner
without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.” Id. In other words,
Respondents agreed to a preliminary injunction that would track the existing TRO.
Nevertheless, Petitioner asks the Court to address two additional legal issues. See Dkt. No.
Case 4:25-cv-10305-HSG Document 22 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 4

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
20. Specifically, Petitioner requests that the Court (1) identify the burden of proof Respondents
bear at any future detention hearing; and (2) reconsider its prior order and hold any future
detention hearings itself. See id. The Court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction on
December 18, 2025.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [s]he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that [s]he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
that the balance of equities tips in h[er] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008). “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that
there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on
the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply
in the plaintiff’s favor and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.’” All. for the Wild Rockies v.
Peña, 865 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709
F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013)). The final two factors “merge when the Government is the
opposing party.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). An injunction is a matter of
equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.
II. DISCUSSION
As discussed above, Respondents do not oppose entering a preliminary injunction to enjoin
them from redetaining Petitioner without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral
decisionmaker. See Dkt. No. 21. The Court agrees that such a preliminary injunction is
appropriate under the circumstances. The Court therefore incorporates its prior analysis from the
TRO order, Dkt. No. 11, and GRANTS a preliminary injunction.
Petitioner requests that the Court confirm that at any future detention hearing, the
government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger
to the community such that his re-detention is warranted. See Dkt. No. 20 at 4–5. The Court
agrees. Respondents did not address this issue in their supplemental brief. Dkt. No. 21.
However, in their opposition to the TRO they urged that Petitioner should bear the burden at any
Case 4:25-cv-10305-HSG Document 22 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 4

3
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
Northern District of California
future bond hearing. See Dkt. No. 10 at 24–25.
In Singh v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit explicitly held that “the government must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify
denial of bond . . . .” 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). Since then, the Ninth Circuit has
recognized that “key aspects” of its cases addressing the process statutorily available for
noncitizens in immigration detention “are no longer good law.” See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland,
53 F.4th 1189, 1196–1202, & n.4 (9th Cir. 2022). However, the Ninth Circuit has not abrogated
Singh’s constitutional holding, and it still appears binding on this Court. Cf. Rodriguez Diaz v.
Garland, 83 F.4th 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2023) (Paez, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en
banc) (“Singh’s constitutional holding . . . remains binding law of our court.”); Martinez v. Clark,
124 F.4th 775, 780–82 (9th Cir. 2024) (nowhere contesting district court’s framing that “[t]o
comply with due process” the government had to “to show by clear and convincing evidence that
[the petitioner] present[ed] a flight risk or a danger to the community at the time of the bond
hearing”) (quotation omitted).
Petitioner also again requests that any detention hearing occur before this Court rather than
before an immigration judge. See Dkt. No. 20 at 9–13. Both in the supplemental briefing and
during the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Petitioner’s counsel reiterated concerns about the
fairness of any such hearing before an immigration judge. See Dkt. No. 20 at 11–13. But the
Court continues to decline the invitation to create a parallel detention hearing procedure in district
court. To the extent Petitioner is detained following any future pre-deprivation hearing before a
neutral decisionmaker, however, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that the immigration court’s
underlying determinations may be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Martinez
v. Clark, 124 F.4th at 784–85.
III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The Government is
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner in any form (including, but not
limited to, for purposes of executing a removal) without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral decisionmaker where the Government bears the burden of demonstrating by clear
Case 4:25-cv-10305-HSG Document 22 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 4

4
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
Northern District of California
and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger such that his physical custody is
required. This Order shall remain in effect until further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
12/22/2025
Case 4:25-cv-10305-HSG Document 22 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 4