Juan Leon Figueroa, Salvador Gudiño Herrera, Adolfo Carrillo Ahilon, and Baltazar Lopez Mendez v. Cammilla Wamsley, et al.

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [7] JUAN LEON FIGUEROA, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02228-TMC [8] Petitioners, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR [9] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. [10] CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al., [11] Respondents. [13] 14 I. ORDER 15 On November 7, 2025, Petitioners Juan Leon Figueroa, Salvador Gudiño Herrera, Adolfo 16 Carrillo Ahilon, and Baltazar Lopez Mendez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging 17 that Respondents violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by subjecting them to mandatory 18 detention at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center 19 (“NWIPC”) under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(2). Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 29–33. The same day, they filed an ex parte 20 motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting Respondents from transferring 21 them out of the Western District of Washington during the pendency of these habeas 22 proceedings. Dkt. 3. The after-hours District Judge issued an order provisionally granting the 23 TRO in part pending Respondents’ response to the motion, requiring Petitioners’ counsel to 24 serve Respondents’ counsel with a copy of the order, and directing the parties to confer regarding 1 a briefing schedule. Dkt. 14. On November 10, the case was transferred to the undersigned 2 District Judge. The Court has not received any proposed briefing schedule from the parties, and 3 Respondents have not filed a response to the motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 65(b)(5) 4 (requiring an adverse party to file any response to a TRO motion “within forty-eight hours after 5 the motion is served”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for a TRO. 6 A federal district court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] . . . 7 jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). A court 8 “has the inherent authority and responsibility to protect the integrity of its proceedings which 9 [are] undoubtedly impacted” when a habeas petitioner is transferred to a detention facility 10 outside of the district. Ozturk v. Trump, 779 F. Supp. 3d 462 , 496 (D. Vt. 2025), amended sub 11 nom. Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382 (2d Cir. 2025). Under this authority, a court may order 12 injunctive relief prohibiting the government from transferring a petitioner out of the district 13 while habeas corpus proceedings are ongoing. See Oliveros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07117-BLF, [14] 2025 WL 2677125 , at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025). 15 Moreover, a party seeking a TRO “must establish that [they are] likely to succeed on the 16 merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 17 the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 18 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); United States v. City of Seattle, 474 19 F. Supp. 3d 1181, 1185 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (“The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as the 20 standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.”). When a party seeks a TRO against the 21 government, the third and fourth factors merge. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073 , 22 1092 (9th Cir. 2014). 23 The Court finds that Petitioners have met the standard to obtain a TRO. First, Petitioners 24 are likely to succeed on the merits: their habeas petition presents the same legal question that this 1 Court considered in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, in which the Court declared that the Tacoma 2 Immigration Court’s practice of denying bond to certain detainees on the basis of 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1225(b) was unlawful. --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499 , at *27 4 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025). The fact that Lopez Mendez has not yet requested a bond hearing 5 is unlikely to defeat his claim for habeas relief. See Marcial Navarette v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-cv6 02150-TMC, Dkt. 11 at 3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 10, 2025). 7 Second, Petitioners have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm from a transfer, 8 which would impede their communications with counsel. Dkt. 3 at 7–8; see L.A.E. v. Wamsley, 9 No. 3:25-CV-01975-AN, 2025 WL 3037856 , at *5 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2025) (“Given the 10 labyrinthine nature of immigration law and the harms of an erroneous deportation, abridging 11 access to legal representation in the context of removal proceedings is a particularly concrete and 12 irreparable harm.”); Arroyo v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. SACV19815JGBSHKX, 2019 13 WL 2912848 , at *22 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2019) (concluding that transferring detainees to new 14 immigration facilities would cause irreparable harm by burdening detainees’ ability to interact 15 with retained counsel). 16 Counsel for Leon Figueroa and Lopez Mendez in their underlying removal proceedings 17 submitted a declaration stating that “their commissary balances had been reduced to $0.00,” 18 which he describes as “a common indicator” that a detainee is facing imminent transfer to 19 another facility. Dkt. 5 ¶ 3. He further asserts that he is unable to represent clients who are 20 detained outside of Washington. Id. ¶ 6 . For Lopez Mendez and Carrillo Ahilon, detention 21 outside of the district could negatively affect his ability to prepare for a bond hearing. See Dkt. 1 22 (requesting that the court issue a writ of habeas corpus requiring Respondents to provide Lopez 23 Mendez and Carrillo Ahilon with bond hearings). And all four Petitioners have submitted 24 evidence suggesting a troubling pattern of attempts to transfer Rodriguez Vazquez class members 1 before they can seek or obtain individual habeas relief—the only current method to enforce the 2 Court’s declaratory judgment. See Dkt. 8–11. Respondents have not countered this evidence. 3 Finally, the balance of the equities weighs in Petitioners’ favor. Ensuring that Petitioners 4 retain access to counsel will facilitate the speedy resolution of the habeas proceedings. See 5 Oliveros, No. 25-CV-07117-BLF, 2025 WL 2677125 , at *8–9 (“Here, the Court finds that 6 equities strongly favor Petitioner remaining in this District pending the resolution of this matter 7 because this will expedite resolution of this matter, provide Petitioner ready access to medical 8 and legal services, and address concerns about the conditions of her detention.”). Keeping 9 Petitioners at NWIPC also would be consistent with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 10 (“ICE”) Detainee Transfers Directive No. 11022.1, which states that “[u]nless a transfer is 11 deemed necessary by a [Field Office Director] or his or her designee,” ICE “will not transfer a 12 detainee when there is documentation to support,” among other things, “[i]mmediate family 13 within the [Area of Responsibility]” or “[a]n attorney of record . . . within the [Area of 14 Responsibility].” Arroyo, No. SACV-19815-JGBSHKX, 2019 WL 2912848 , at *3. 15 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 16 1. Petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 3) is GRANTED. 17 2. Respondents, including their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, or 18 others acting on their behalf, are PROHIBITED from transferring Petitioners from the 19 Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center to any other 20 facility during the pendency of these proceedings unless they seek modification of 21 this Order or they obtain a final, executable order of removal. 22 3. This Order expires November 27, 2025, unless extended by this Court. The Court 23 anticipates that it can rule on the underlying habeas petition within that time. Should [24] l an extension be necessary, the Court will set a hearing and briefing schedule for 2 whether to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. 3 4. Respondents have not requested a bond and the Court waives the bond requirement 4 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). [5] 6 Dated this 13th day of November, 2025. Say OS 8 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge [10] 1]