Aguilar-Perez v. LaRose et al

1
25cv3409-LL-DDL
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
ROSA AGUILAR-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25cv3409-LL-DDL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PETITIONER’S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
[ECF No. 3]
This case comes before the Court on Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition and ex
parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 2, 3. On December 15,
2025, Respondents filed a Return. ECF No. 7. On December 19, 2025, Respondents filed
a Supplemental Response to the Petition, in which they “acknowledge that Petitioner is
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this court directing a
bond hearing to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 8.
Respondents’ Supplemental Response is filed in light of the new authority in
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, granting in part and
denying in part the petitioners’ ex parte application for reconsideration or clarification. In
the order, the court granted the petitioners’ request for entry of final judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and subsequently entered that judgment. Maldonado
Case 3:25-cv-03409-LL-DDL Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25cv3409-LL-DDL
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
Bautista, ECF No. 94.1 In light of the entry of judgment, Respondents acknowledge
Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Accordingly, the
Court grants in part Petitioner’s ex parte application for a TRO. Respondents are directed
to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within
seven (7) days of this Order. On or before January 5, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint
Status Report confirming Petitioner has been provided with a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2025
1 Subsequent to entry of judgment, the respondents in Maldonado Bautista filed a Notice of Appeal.
However, the Ninth Circuit has held the filing of an appeal does not suspend the preclusive effect of a
lower court judgment. Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-03409-LL-DDL Document 9 Filed 12/22/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2