Sixtos Chavez et al v. Noem et al

1
25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC
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
JOSE GUADALUPE SIXTOS CHAVEZ;
JUAN MANUEL HERNANDEZ DIAZ;
and JESUS HERRERA TORRES,
Petitioners,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’
SECOND MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
[Doc. No. 17]
Pending before the Court is Petitioners’ second motion for a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”). 	[Doc. No. 17.] 1 Petitioners argue that they are members of the class
certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.) and
are therefore entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	The Court agrees and
therefore GRANTS the motion for a TRO.
1 Document numbers and page references are to those assigned by CM/ECF for the docket
entry.
Case 3:25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC Document 20 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC
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
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioners Jose Guadalupe Sixtos Chavez and Jesus Herrera Torres 2 are both
currently detained at the Otay Mesa immigration detention center. [Doc. No. 1 at 7]. Both
Petitioners were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents on
August 22, 2025 in Pasadena, California. 	[Id.]. 	ICE charged each Petitioner with
inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as being present in the United States
without being admitted or paroled, and placed Petitioners in removal proceedings pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). 	[Id. at 6–7]. 	Respondents consider Petitioners under mandatory
detention without the possibility of bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	Petitioners
previously challenged this decision, but this Court agreed with Respondents’ interpretation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and therefore denied Petitioners’ initial motion for a TRO and
preliminary injunction. [Doc. Nos. 8, 13.] Petitioners appealed the denial of a preliminary
injunction, but have since voluntarily dismissed that appeal and filed a second motion for
TRO based on the Maldonado Bautista’s class certification and entry of partial final
judgment, which found unlawful Respondents’ classification of noncitizens like Petitioners
under 	§ 1225(b)(2) 	and 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention.
Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485, at *1
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025); see also Doc. Nos. 14, 17–18.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The legal standard for issuing a TRO is essentially identical to the standard for
issuing a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.,
240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Zamfir v. Casperlabs, LLC, 528 F. Supp.
3d 1136, 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2021). “A party seeking a preliminary injunction must meet one
of two variants of the same standard.” 	All. for the Wild Rockies v. Pena, 865 F.3d 1211,
1217 (9th Cir. 2017). 	Under the Winter standard, a party is entitled to a preliminary
2 Petitioner Juan Manuel Hernandez Diaz is no longer in federal custody. [Doc. No. 5 at
9, n.1.]
Case 3:25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC Document 20 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC
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
injunction if he demonstrates (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat.
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A party must make a showing on all four
prongs. 	A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Becerra, 901 F.3d 1166, 1167 (9th
Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).
Under the Ninth Circuit’s “serious questions” test, “a ‘sliding scale’ variant of the
Winter test,” a party is “entitled to a preliminary injunction if it demonstrates (1) serious
questions going to the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury, (3) a balance of
hardships that tips sharply towards the [petitioner], and (4) the injunction is in the public
interest.” 	Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana, 98 F.4th 1180, 1190
(9th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]f a [petitioner] 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 [petitioner’s] favor, and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” All. for
the Wild Rockies, 865 F.3d at 1217 (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The first Winter factor—likely success on the merits—is “the most important” and
is a threshold inquiry. 	Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015).
Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success, or alternatively,
showing “serious questions going to the merits.” See A Woman’s Friend, 901 F.3d at 1167;
All. for the Wild Rockies, 865 F.3d at 1135.
Given the final judgment entered in 	Maldonado Bautista, we conclude that
Petitioners have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that they should be
eligible for a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and therefore GRANT Petitioner’s request for
a TRO. 	Petitioners are members of the certified Bond Eligible Class in Maldonado
Bautista, namely they are noncitizens who are in the United States without lawful status
who entered the United States without inspection, were not apprehended upon arrival, and
Case 3:25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC Document 20 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC
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
were not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time
the Department of Homeland Security made an initial custody determination. 	Bautista v.
Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987, at *32 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18,
2025); see Doc. No. 17 at 8–9; Doc. No. 5 at 12.
The remaining three Winter factors also weigh in Respondents’ favor. 	Without a
bond hearing to which they are entitled by the final judgment in Maldondo Bautista,
Petitioners will experience irreparable harm because “[d]eprivation of physical liberty by
detention constitutes irreparable harm.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir.
2018). 	The balance of equities and public interest also weigh in Petitioners’ favor,
especially where in numerous cases with similarly situated petitioners, Respondents have
acknowledged that, pursuant to 	Maldonado Bautista, petitioners are detained under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a court order directing a bond hearing to be held. 	E.g.,
Osuna v. Casey, No. 25CV3668-LL-MMP, 2026 WL 50755, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2026);
see also Doc. No. 17 at 9 (listing cases).
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC Document 20 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners’ second motion for a TRO is GRANTED. The
Court thus ORDERS that:
(1) Respondents release Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Sixtos Chavez on the conditions
set by order of the immigration judge on December 31, 2025, including release
on bond of $2,000, in the event that it was later determined that the immigration
court had jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 17-1 at 156.]
(2) Respondents provide Petitioner Jesus Herrera Torres with an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its
associated regulations by January 23, 2026.
(3) The parties must submit a joint status report on Petitioners’ detention status by
January 28, 2026.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02325-CAB-SBC Document 20 Filed 01/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5