Jorge Munoz Juarez v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2001) (“Summary 6 dismissal is appropriate only
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by a detained immigration petitioner. The court ordered the government to respond to the petition, denied the ex parte TRO request, and set a briefing schedule for the motion for injunctive relief under Rule 65(a).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering the Government to respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, finding that the petition's allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous, which is the correct procedural step for a facially valid habeas petition. |
Denying the Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order“Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court denies the ex parte request for a temporary restraining order.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Reno Air Racing) which restrict ex parte TROs to extraordinary circumstances. The court noted its preference for notice and opposition, which is consistent with the rule. |
Setting a briefing schedule for the Motion for Injunctive Relief under Rule 65(a)“Thus, the Court will instead consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond.” | agree with court Converting an ex parte TRO request into a noticed motion for preliminary injunction or TRO under Rule 65(a) is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism when ex parte relief is denied. |
Providing notice of intent to consolidate the Motion for Injunctive Relief with the merits determination under Rule 65(a)(2)“Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2).” | agree with court The court correctly cited Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. for the proposition that a court may invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by providing clear and unambiguous notice to the parties. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural standards for summary dismissal of habeas petitions and the restrictions on ex parte TROs. It cites appropriate binding authority from the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. The decision to deny the ex parte TRO and convert it to a noticed motion under Rule 65(a) is procedurally sound. The notice regarding Rule 65(a)(2) consolidation is also properly handled.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE MUNOZ JUAREZ, Case No. 26-cv-00827-BAS-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 15 Respondents. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 16 17 (2) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR 18 INJUNCTIVE 19 RELIEF (ECF No. 2); AND 20 (3) PROVIDING NOTICE UNDER 21 RULE 65(a)(2)
22 23 Petitioner Jorge Munoz Juarez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 24 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleges he is being detained by Immigration 25 and Customs Enforcement in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the immigration laws. 26 (Id.) Petitioner also alleges he is a member of the class certified in the Central District’s 27 decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 28 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). 1 In addition, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining 2 Order (“Motion for Injunctive Relief”). (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner asks the Court to order 3 immediate release or a bond hearing within a fixed time period. (Id.) 4 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 5 at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 6 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 7 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 8 Government to respond to the Petition. 9 Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court denies the ex parte request for 10 a temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). “While temporary restraining 11 orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the 12 Court will do so only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court’s strong preference is for 13 the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an 14 opposition.” Standing Order for Civil Cases § 9; see also Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 15 Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438– 16 39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and their “stringent 17 restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th 18 Cir. 2006) (same). Thus, the Court will instead consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief 19 under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond. 20 Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the 21 Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 23 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear 24 and unambiguous notice”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 25 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for 26 Injunctive Relief no later than February 18, 2026. The Government’s response must 27 address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the 28 determination of the issues raised in the Petition. l 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition and the Motion for 2 || Injunctive Relief no later than February 25, 2026. 3 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 4 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 5 ||2), and this Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g || DATED: February 11, 2026 yatta Bahar be 9 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28