JORGE ARTURO ARMENTA-ROSALES; CUBERTO CHAVEZ ABARCA; ORLANDO SEGURA ERAZO; MARIO IGNACIO MONTES ROCHA; MARCOS ANTONIO PINEDA; RODOLFO VILLANUEAVA-CONTRERAS v.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered Petitioners' ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) regarding their detention and the right to a bond hearing. The court granted the TRO, ordering Respondents to arrange individualized bond hearings for Petitioners within seven days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petitioners' ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order is granted.“Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioners’ ex parte application for a TRO.” | agree with court The court relies on the preclusive effect of a prior judgment in a related case (Maldonado Bautista) to determine that Petitioners are entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court cites Hawkins v. Risley to support the proposition that the filing of an appeal does not suspend the preclusive effect of that judgment. This reasoning is legally sound within the context of collateral estoppel or res judicata principles applied to the specific factual finding that the petitioners are entitled to a bond hearing. The order is a procedural mechanism to enforce that right. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but logically consistent. It identifies the controlling authority (the prior judgment in Maldonado Bautista) and addresses the potential defense (the pending appeal) by citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Hawkins v. Risley) that the appeal does not stay the preclusive effect. The relief ordered (bond hearings within 7 days) is a direct and appropriate remedy to enforce the right established by the prior judgment.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25cv3505 DMS BLM JORGE ARTURO ARMENTA- 12 ROSALES; CUBERTO CHAVEZ ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’ ABARCA; ORLANDO SEGURA 13 EX PARTE MOTION FOR ERAZO; MARIO IGNACIO MONTES TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 14 ROCHA; MARCOS ANTONIO ORDER PINEDA; RODOLFO VILLANUEAVA- 15 CONTRERAS, 16 17 Petitioners, v. 18 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. 19 Department of Homeland Security; et al. 20 Respondents. 21 22 This case comes before the Court on Petitioners’ ex parte motion for a temporary 23 restraining order (“TRO”). Respondents filed an opposition to the motion, Petitioners filed 24 a reply and a Notice of New Authority, and Respondents filed a Supplemental Brief. 25 The New Authority is an order issued by the United States District Court for the 26 Central District of California in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv- 27 01873-SSS-BFM, granting in part and denying in part the petitioners’ ex parte application 28 for reconsideration or clarification. In the order, the court granted the petitioners’ request 1 ||for entry of final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and 2 ||subsequently entered that judgment. Maldonado Bautista, ECF No. 94.' In light of the 3 ||entry of judgment, Respondents acknowledge Petitioners are entitled to a bond hearing 4 ||pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioners’ ex parte 5 || application fora TRO. Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing 6 ||for Petitioners before an immigration court within seven (7) days of this Order. On or 7 |\|before December 29, 2025, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report confirming 8 || Petitioners have been provided with those bond hearings. In that Report, the parties shall 9 provide their respective positions on whether a further order on the Petition is 10 ||necessary or if the case may be dismissed as moot. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: December 19, 2025 13 2 nnn Salo Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |} 27 ||! Subsequent to entry of judgment, the respondents in Maldonado Bautista filed a Notice of Appeal. 9g ||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 (9" Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).