Daniela M. Toledo Hernandez v. Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent ICE from detaining her at her upcoming adjustment-of-status interview. The court denied the motion, finding that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm based on individualized facts.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Denial of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.” | substantial evidence | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions/TROs as established in Winter and Ninth Circuit precedent. The court identified the failure to meet the second factor (irreparable harm) as the dispositive issue. The reasoning that general evidence of arrests of 'similarly situated' individuals does not establish a *likelihood* of harm to the specific plaintiff is legally sound. A TRO requires a clear showing of entitlement to relief, and a 'possibility' of harm is insufficient. The court's reliance on the lack of individualized facts to show the specific risk to the Plaintiff is a proper application of the law to the record presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for a TRO in the Ninth Circuit, including the requirement to show a likelihood of irreparable harm. The court's analysis of the record is precise: it acknowledges the evidence of arrests of others but correctly distinguishes this from evidence that the specific plaintiff is likely to be arrested. The conclusion that a 'possibility' of harm is insufficient for an extraordinary remedy like a TRO is a direct application of Winter v. NRDC. The order does not skip necessary arguments or authorities for the specific ruling made.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIELA M. TOLEDO HERNANDEZ, Case No.: 26cv0036-LL-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 14 PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, et al., 15 [ECF No. 3] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Daniela M. Toledo Hernandez’s Ex Parte Motion for a 20 Temporary Restraining Order precluding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 21 from detaining Plaintiff at her adjustment-of-status interview on January 14, 2026 at the 22 USCIS San Diego Field Office “and then removing Plaintiff, and, if that would happen, for 23 her immediate release.” ECF No. 3 at 3. Respondents filed an Opposition. ECF No. 6. For 24 the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 25 The purpose of a temporary restraining order (TRO) is to preserve the status quo and 26 prevent irreparable harm until a preliminary injunction may be held. Granny Goose Foods, 27 Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 28 439 (1974). The legal standard for a TRO and a preliminary injunction is “substantially 1 identical.” Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 2 (9th Cir. 2001). The party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) he is 3 likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 4 preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in 5 the public interest. City & Cty. of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. 6 Servs., 944 F.3d 773, 789 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 7 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). In the Ninth Circuit, the court may apply a sliding scale test in 8 which “serious questions going to the merits” and a balance of hardships that tips sharply 9 toward the moving party can support the issuance of a preliminary injunction, as long as 10 there is also a showing of a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the 11 public interest. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show that she is likely to suffer irreparable 13 harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Plaintiff’s counsel includes declarations from 14 herself regarding three similarly situated applicants who were arrested at their adjustment- 15 of-status interviews in December 2025 at the USCIS field office in San Diego [ECF No. 3 16 at 26–27] and another attorney regarding an ICE arrest she witnessed at an adjustment-of- 17 status interview on November 12, 2025 [ECF No. 3 at 23] at the USCIS field office in San 18 Diego. Plaintiff also includes news reports primarily from December 2025 describing ICE 19 arrests of applicants at their adjustment-of-status interviews at the USCIS field office in 20 San Diego. ECF No. 3 at 31–47. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that such an 21 arrest is likely to happen to her. Although there have been similarly situated people who 22 have been arrested, there is no indication of whether the majority of applicants are arrested 23 or not. Without more concrete or individualized facts about the likelihood of Plaintiff’s 24 arrest and detention, the Court cannot enjoin Defendants. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ||C‘Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is 2 ||inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that 3 ||may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”). 4 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||Dated: January 13, 2026 NO 7 CF | g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28