Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 8, 2026, a petitioner proceeding under the initials V.D.C.M. asked the Eastern District of California for a temporary restraining order against federal respondents, including Markwayne Mullin. The motion (ECF No. 12) rested on the petitioner's allegation that Respondents had said removal was imminent, even though the petitioner's removal order was not final. The order describes this as what Respondents had allegedly told Petitioner. The court made no finding about what was actually said.
The court first administratively stayed Petitioner's removal while it considered the motion and ordered a government response (ECF No. 13). Respondents' response confirmed that Petitioner had not been removed and that Petitioner had filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (ECF No. 14). Petitioner also had a pending motion to proceed under a pseudonym (ECF No. 3). The order was signed on October 15, 2026, and filed on October 16, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Applying Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), the court concluded that Petitioner met the requirements for a temporary restraining order. It stated that Petitioner had established a likelihood of success on the merits and that the irreparable harm from a wrongful removal is substantial. It also stated that the balance of the equities and the public interest tip clearly in Petitioner's favor. The order is short. It does not explain the legal basis for the likelihood of success, and it does not decide the pending BIA appeal or the validity of the removal order.
The relief is narrow and interim. Respondents are enjoined and restrained from removing Petitioner from the United States without a final order of removal and before the removal period begins, as defined under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B). The injunction does not bar removal once those conditions are satisfied. The court also ordered Respondents to show cause, on or before October 22, 2026, why the order should not be converted into a preliminary injunction on the same terms. Finally, it granted the motion to proceed under a pseudonym. Whether the protection continues beyond the restraining order depends on that later ruling.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a temporary restraining order, not a final judgment, and it does not decide the merits of Petitioner's removal case or the BIA appeal.
- The court enjoined removal only without a final order of removal and before the removal period begins under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B), so the restraint is limited to those circumstances.
- The court relied on the government's own confirmation that Petitioner had not been removed and had a BIA appeal pending, while the claim of imminent removal remained Petitioner's allegation.
- Respondents must respond by October 22, 2026, to show why the order should not become a preliminary injunction on identical terms.
- The grant of the pseudonym motion keeps Petitioner's identity out of the public record, and the order is unpublished and not precedential.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court can act quickly to preserve the status quo when a noncitizen reports imminent removal before an order has become final. The court stayed removal administratively, required a prompt government response, and then issued a restraining order tied to the statutory sequence in § 1231(a)(1)(B). Because the order states its conclusions briefly, it offers limited guidance on the underlying legal theory and has little precedential weight as an unpublished district court ruling.
What remains open is substantial. Respondents may contest the injunction when they respond to the show-cause order. The court may then enter a preliminary injunction on the same terms, or let the restraining order lapse. The BIA appeal and any later final order of removal are outside this ruling, and the order would not prevent a lawful removal once a final order exists and the removal period has begun.