Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ricardo Castillo Esquivel filed a habeas corpus petition and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order in the Northern District of California on October 22, 2026. The order recites facts from the petition as the record before the court; they are allegations, not adjudicated findings. According to that record, he first came to the United States in 1989, an immigration judge ordered him removed in absentia in 2006, and he was removed to Mexico in October 2007. He says he returned without inspection about three months later and has lived here continuously for over eighteen years, working seven years for one construction employer and supporting four adult children and six grandchildren, all U.S. citizens. The petition lists four convictions between 2004 and 2007, including evading a peace officer, for which he served six months and nine days in jail.
The petition alleges that on the morning of October 22, 2026, six officers in vests marked ICE stopped him at a shopping center, said they were seeking a different man, and, after he denied being that man, put him in a van and questioned him in an empty parking lot. They allegedly asked whether he would sign papers to return to Mexico and showed no arrest warrant. He was taken to the ICE San Francisco field office, where he remained when the order issued.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the Winter factors and found Esquivel likely to succeed on a Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim. It reasoned that freedom from government custody lies at the heart of protected liberty and that due process ordinarily requires a hearing before a person is deprived of it. It stated that immigration detention requires a showing of exigent circumstances, and that Respondents offered no evidence on this record that he was a flight risk or a danger. It also noted that he received no process and that no neutral decisionmaker had found danger or flight risk, citing an earlier Northern District decision, Ayala v. Albarran, as support for issuing a TRO.
The court found irreparable harm, treating the likely unconstitutional loss of liberty as immediate. On the merged equities and public interest factors, it found the balance tipped decidedly toward Esquivel, because the government faces at most a short delay in detaining him if it later shows detention is necessary. It concluded that immediate release restores the status quo, defined as the moment before the likely illegal detention. It found Rule 65(b)(1) satisfied for relief without notice, noting counsel's statement that the U.S. Attorney's Office was contacted that day, and dispensed with bond under Rule 65(c).
The order requires Respondents to release Esquivel immediately and enjoins re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. It bars moving him from the judicial district, orders his return if already transferred, and prohibits removal from the United States until the proceedings end. Respondents must file a status report confirming release by 10:00 a.m. on October 23, 2026. They must also respond to the motion and produce arrest and custody records, including any Form I-213, warrant and Form I-871, by October 28, with any reply due November 2. They must show cause at an in-person hearing on November 4, 2026, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The TRO lasts until 10:09 p.m. on November 5, 2026, unless the court directs otherwise.
Key Takeaways
- The order is an interim TRO, not a final judgment; the habeas petition and the preliminary injunction question remain pending.
- The court found a likely procedural due process violation because Esquivel was detained with no process and Respondents offered no evidence of flight risk or danger.
- Relief went beyond release: it bars re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, bars transfer from the district, and bars removal from the United States while proceedings continue.
- The arrest facts come from the untested petition, and Respondents must produce their arrest records and respond by October 28, 2026.
Why It Matters
This is a short-lived preliminary order, not a final ruling. It applies the Winter factors and follows earlier district decisions to a same-day ICE arrest, and its practical weight lies in the specific relief and the compressed schedule for the government to justify any detention.
The order does not decide whether the 2006 removal order or the alleged 2007 reentry affects Esquivel's rights or the government's authority to detain him, and it makes no final findings of fact. Those questions, and whether a preliminary injunction should issue, are reserved for the November 4, 2026 show-cause hearing before the assigned judge.