Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
According to the petition and supporting declarations, which the court recited at this early stage without adversarial testing, Mauro Ivan Garcia Nambo was born in Mexico in 1981, came to the United States as a teenager, was removed in 2006, and has lived here for more than ten years since his last entry. He lives in Forestville with his partner, a U.S. citizen, and supports his adult U.S. citizen daughter. He works for a towing company, reports asthma, anxiety, and claustrophobia, says he is without his anxiety medication, and says he fears return to Mexico because of cartels.
He alleges that on the morning of October 13, 2026, about six masked officers in vests marked "POLICE ICE" surrounded his parked car in a Santa Rosa lot, drew their weapons, handcuffed him without identifying themselves, stating a reason, or asking for identification, searched his car, and took him to the ICE office at 630 Sansome Street in San Francisco. There he received a Form I-871 notice of reinstatement of a prior removal order, dated that day, which cites the 2006 removal, lists his reentry as an "Unknown Date" at an "Unknown Place," and states he has no right to a hearing before an immigration judge. The petition alleges the reinstatement decision was issued after the arrest, and when it was filed Respondents had produced no arrest warrant, removal warrant, or other document.
He filed a habeas petition and an ex parte TRO motion the same day, invoking the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). His counsel gave the U.S. Attorney's Office for the district notice and a copy of the petition.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted the TRO. She found Rule 65(b)(1) satisfied by counsel's declaration of immediate irreparable injury and by same-day notice to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and found that all four Winter factors favored Petitioner. On the merits, the court addressed only procedural due process, finding a likelihood of success; it did not decide the Fourth Amendment or § 1357(a)(2) theories. It reasoned that freedom from government custody lies at the heart of the liberty the Due Process Clause protects, that the Clause typically requires a hearing before liberty is taken, and that immigration detention requires a showing of exigent circumstances. Respondents seized Petitioner while he waited in his car for work and offered no evidence on the record that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Because the detention was likely unconstitutional, irreparable harm followed under Ninth Circuit precedent treating constitutional deprivations as irreparable injury. The equities and public interest also favored relief: the harm to Petitioner is significant, while the government faces at most a short delay if it later shows by clear and convincing evidence that detention is necessary to prevent danger or flight. The court dispensed with a Rule 65(c) bond, seeing no prejudice to Respondents.
The order requires immediate release and bars re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. It also bars removing Petitioner from the district (and requires his return if already transferred) or from the United States while the proceedings are pending. Respondents were to file a status report confirming release by 10:00 a.m. on October 14, 2026, and must show cause at 10:00 a.m. on October 22, 2026, why a preliminary injunction should not issue, with a response due October 19 and a reply October 21. The TRO lasts until 6:55 a.m. on October 28, 2026, unless the court directs otherwise.
Key Takeaways
- This is a temporary restraining order, not a final ruling; the merits of the habeas petition and the preliminary injunction remain open.
- The court found a likely procedural due process violation where ICE detained a man without a hearing and put no flight-risk or dangerousness evidence in the record.
- Release does not bar future detention: the government may re-detain Petitioner only after notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
- The court did not rule on the Fourth Amendment or § 1357(a)(2) claims, and the facts it recited come from Petitioner's filings.
Why It Matters
The order is an early, emergency-stage application of procedural due process to a person held after an on-the-street ICE arrest and a same-day reinstatement notice, and it puts the burden on the government to justify detention before a neutral decisionmaker. It is a district court order, not a binding appellate ruling.
Its practical reach is limited to this petitioner and a short interim period. The October 22 show-cause hearing will test whether Respondents can supply evidence of flight risk or danger and whether the relief continues as a preliminary injunction.