Rosa Aguilar-Perez v. Christopher J. Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petitioner's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, noting that Respondents acknowledged the Petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) following the entry of judgment in a related case. The court granted the TRO in part, directing Respondents to arrange an individualized bond hearing within seven days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant in part of Petitioner's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).“Accordingly, the Court grants in part Petitioner’s ex parte application for a TRO.” | agree with court The court's decision to grant the TRO is supported by the Respondents' explicit acknowledgment in their Supplemental Response that the Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). This acknowledgment, coupled with the court's reliance on the preclusive effect of the judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, provides a sufficient basis for the order. The court correctly noted that the filing of an appeal does not suspend the preclusive effect of the lower court judgment, citing Hawkins v. Risley. |
Direction to Respondents to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within seven days.“Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within seven (7) days of this Order.” | agree with court The directive follows logically from the grant of the TRO and the Respondents' acknowledgment of the Petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The seven-day timeframe is a reasonable and specific deadline to ensure prompt compliance. |
Requirement for parties to file a Joint Status Report confirming the bond hearing by January 5, 2026.“On or before January 5, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report confirming Petitioner has been provided with a bond hearing.” | agree with court This procedural requirement is a standard mechanism to ensure compliance with the court's order and to provide the court with a record of the hearing's occurrence. It is a reasonable and appropriate condition attached to the TRO. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal basis for the Petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing (8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)) as established by the judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz. It appropriately relies on Respondents' acknowledgment of this entitlement and correctly applies the principle from Hawkins v. Risley that an appeal does not stay the preclusive effect of the judgment. The relief granted (a TRO directing a bond hearing) is directly responsive to the motion and the legal situation described.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSA AGUILAR-PEREZ, Case No.: 25cv3409-LL-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITIONER’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of RESTRAINING ORDER Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 3] 16 17 This case comes before the Court on Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition and ex 18 parte motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 2, 3. On December 15, 19 2025, Respondents filed a Return. ECF No. 7. On December 19, 2025, Respondents filed 20 a Supplemental Response to the Petition, in which they “acknowledge that Petitioner is 21 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this court directing a 22 bond hearing to be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF No. 8. 23 Respondents’ Supplemental Response is filed in light of the new authority in 24 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, granting in part and 25 denying in part the petitioners’ ex parte application for reconsideration or clarification. In 26 the order, the court granted the petitioners’ request for entry of final judgment pursuant to 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and subsequently entered that judgment. Maldonado 28 1 || Bautista, ECF No. 94.! In light of the entry of judgment, Respondents acknowledge 2 || Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Accordingly, the 3 || Court grants in part Petitioner’s ex parte application for a TRO. Respondents are directed 4 || to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within 5 ||seven (7) days of this Order. On or before January 5, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint 6 || Status Report confirming Petitioner has been provided with a bond hearing. 7 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: December 22, 2025 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ||] 27 |! Subsequent to entry of judgment, the respondents in Maldonado Bautista filed a Notice of Appeal. 3g 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).