Sisawang Khambounheuang v. Kristi Noem; Pamela J. Bondi; Todd M. Lyons; Jesus Rocha; Christopher Larose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for a preliminary injunction in a habeas corpus petition challenging the unlawful redetention of a non-citizen. The court granted the motion as to the procedural due process claim, enjoining the government from removing or redetaining the petitioner unless it first complies with specific regulatory notice and interview requirements.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for preliminary injunction granted as to procedural due process claim“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction as to his procedural due process claim.” | agree with court The order recites that the court previously granted a TRO on procedural due process and Accardi grounds. It then grants the PI on the same procedural grounds, citing the specific regulatory requirements (8 C.F.R. § 241.13) that the government must follow. While the order does not explicitly state the four-factor preliminary injunction test, the grant is consistent with the prior TRO and the specific regulatory violations alleged. The court limits the injunction to the procedural claim, implicitly denying or not reaching the substantive due process claim for PI purposes. |
Injunction issued enjoining removal or redetention without compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13“Respondents, and their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District, or from redetaining him, unless and until the Government demonstrates compliance with the procedural requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 241.13), including (a) providing Petitioner with written notice of the reasons for any revocation of release and (b) providing Petitioner an informal interview and opportunity to respond to those reasons.” | agree with court The injunction is tailored to the specific procedural violations alleged (lack of notice and opportunity to respond). It requires the government to demonstrate compliance before acting, which is a standard mechanism for ensuring due process in immigration detention contexts. The citation to 8 C.F.R. § 241.13 is the correct regulation governing revocation of release for non-citizens in removal proceedings. |
Government ordered to file written declaration of compliance 48 hours prior to redetention“The Government shall file a written declaration attesting to full compliance with these obligations 48 hours prior to any redetention.” | agree with court This is a procedural safeguard to ensure the government actually complies with the injunction's requirements before taking action. It is a reasonable and common condition in such orders to prevent non-compliance and allow the court to monitor adherence. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is concise and focuses on the specific procedural due process violation. It correctly identifies the relevant regulation (8 C.F.R. § 241.13) and the specific procedural steps required (notice and interview). The injunction is narrowly tailored to ensure compliance with these procedures. The order does not explicitly discuss the four-factor preliminary injunction test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest), but given the prior TRO and the clear regulatory violation, the result is defensible. The omission of the explicit test is a gap, but not a fatal one in this context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SISAWANG KHAMBOUNHEUANG, Case No.: 25-cv-2575 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DKT. 15] 14 KRISTI NOEM; PAMELA J. BONDI; TODD M. LYONS; JESUS ROCHA; 15 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 30, 2025, Petitioner Sisawang Khambounheuang (“Petitioner”) filed 19 a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary 20 restraining order (“TRO”), alleging that the Government unlawfully redetained him on 21 August 13, 2025, in violation of his substantive and procedural due process rights, 22 including violations of the Government’s own procedures under United States ex rel. 23 Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954). Dkts. 1, 3. On October 9, 2025, the Court 24 granted Petitioner’s motion for a TRO on both substantive due process and procedural due 25 process/Accardi grounds. Dkt. 12. On October 15, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for 26 preliminary injunction, renewing his request for injunctive relief to preserve the status quo. 27 Dkt. 15. 28 1 After reviewing the parties’ briefing and holding oral argument, the Court ORDERS 2 follows: 3 1. The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction as to his 4 procedural due process claim. 5 2. Respondents, and their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 6 acting in concert with them, are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the 7 United States or this District, or from redetaining him, unless and until the 8 Government demonstrates compliance with the procedural requirements of 8 C.F.R. 9 § 241.13), including (a) providing Petitioner with written notice of the reasons for 10 any revocation of release and (b) providing Petitioner an informal interview and 11 opportunity to respond to those reasons. 12 3. The Government shall file a written declaration attesting to full compliance with 13 these obligations 48 hours prior to any redetention. 14 15 written order will follow. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 || Dated: October 23, 2025 — 20 Ho forgbfe Jinsook Ohta United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28