Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Luis Alfredo Sucop Mejia brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against a respondent identified in the caption as the Warden. He moved for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 24) asking the court to order Respondents to facilitate his return to the United States after he was removed to Guatemala, a removal he described as unlawful.
Respondents filed a response (ECF No. 29) confirming that Petitioner was removed while a stay of removal was in effect. According to the court, Respondents described the removal as inadvertent and represented that they intend to facilitate his return to the United States. The government's position therefore was not that the removal was lawful, but that it was a mistake it planned to remedy.
The order is brief, two pages in total. It does not identify who issued the stay, the proceeding in which it was entered, or the nature of the underlying claims, and it makes no contested findings about how the removal happened. Those details are not in the order and should not be assumed.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Daniel J. Calabretta found that Petitioner met the requirements for a temporary restraining order under Winter v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). On likelihood of success, the court relied on the concession that Petitioner was improperly removed. It stated that the irreparable harm from the removal is readily apparent and that the balance of equities and the public interest clearly favor Petitioner. These are conclusions at a preliminary stage, not final merits determinations.
The court then ordered three things. First, the motion for a temporary restraining order was converted to a request for a preliminary injunction and granted. Second, Respondents must facilitate Petitioner's return to the United States. Third, Respondents must file an update on October 23, 2026, and every week after that until Petitioner is returned, giving a detailed explanation of the efforts taken to facilitate his return. The order is dated October 19, 2026, and was entered on the docket the following day.
The order sets no deadline for the return itself and does not prescribe the means. It requires facilitation and regular reporting. It does not address the legality of the underlying removal beyond the concession, any damages, or any final judgment in the case.
Key Takeaways
- A government concession that a removal occurred while a stay of removal was in effect supplied the basis for the court's finding of likely success on the merits.
- The relief is a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment, so the underlying case remains pending and the merits are not resolved.
- The court ordered the government to facilitate Petitioner's return but did not set a date for his arrival or dictate specific steps.
- Respondents must file detailed weekly reports on their efforts, beginning October 23, 2026, until Petitioner is returned.
- The court treated the motion as a request for a preliminary injunction instead of issuing a short-term restraining order.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court may respond when the government admits that a person was removed despite a stay: it can require affirmative steps to bring the person back rather than only barring future removal. Weekly reporting gives the court ongoing visibility into whether the government is following through on its stated intent to facilitate return.
Because the ruling rests on a concession and is short, it is not a detailed analysis of a court's authority to order return in contested cases. As an unreported district court order, it carries no binding precedential weight. Open questions include when and whether Petitioner is actually returned, how the stay arose, and how the underlying claims will be resolved.