Angelina Flores Torres v. Cammilla Wamsley et al.

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] ANGELINA FLORES TORRES, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02687-LK [8] Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR [9] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. [10] CAMMILLA WAMSLEY et al., [11] Respondents. [13] 14 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Angelina Flores Torres’s emergency 15 motion for temporary restraining order and stay of removal. Dkt. No. 2. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Flores Torres avers that she is a “a 52-year-old native of Mexico who came to the United 18 States to seek asylum in 2019.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. “She was detained briefly at the border in October 19 of 2019 and paroled to seek asylum in removal proceedings with the issuance of a Notice to 20 Appear.” Id. In June 2025, Flores Torres “erroneously believed that she did not have to attend” a 21 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) check-in appointment. Id. In December 22 2025, Flores Torres “received a call asking her to check-in to the local ICE office,” where she was 23 then “arrested and detained.” Id. “She remains in ICE custody at the No[r]thwest [ICE] Processing [24] 1 Center in Tacoma, Washington.” Id. Flores Torres claims that she is being held unlawfully because 2 ICE failed to provide her a notice and hearing. Id. 3 On December 23, 2025, Flores Torres filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, id., along 4 with an emergency motion for temporary restraining order and stay of removal, Dkt. No. 2. She 5 seeks an order “[e]njoining and restraining the Respondents and all of their respective officers, 6 agents, servants, employees, attorneys and persons acting on their behalf in concert or in 7 participation with them” from “[r]emoving or deporting [her] from the United States while these 8 proceedings are pending” or “[t]ransferring [her] from the Northwest ICE Processing Center to 9 any other detention facility during the pendency of these proceedings[.]” Id. at 4. Counsel did not 10 call the Court’s emergency filing line to “advise the court that [he] ha[d] filed an emergency 11 motion[.]” LCR 65(b)(3). 12 On December 28, 2025, the case was randomly assigned to the undersigned judge. On the 13 same day, pursuant to this District’s General Order 10-25, the Court issued an order requiring that 14 Respondents provide “at least 48 hours’ notice (or 72 hours’ notice if the period extends into a 15 weekend, holiday, or date the Court is closed) prior to any action to move or transfer” Flores Torres 16 and setting a briefing schedule on her petition. Dkt. No. 3 at 2. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue a TRO. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 65(b). Like a preliminary injunction, a TRO is “an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of 20 right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); see also Washington v. Trump, [21] 847 F.3d 1151 , 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (the standards applicable to TROs and preliminary 22 injunctions are “substantially identical”). The Court will not “mechanically” grant an injunction 23 for every violation of law. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313 (1982). Instead, 24 plaintiffs seeking a TRO must establish that (1) they are “likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) they 1 are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “the balance of 2 equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 3 20. The mere “possibility” of irreparable harm is insufficient; instead, the moving party must 4 “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Id. at 22 . 5 Here, Flores Torres has not made the required showing that she is “likely to suffer 6 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 . Her motion 7 states only that she is “at risk of being arbitrarily transferred out of state, away from her father, 8 siblings, and children who she lives with in Central Washington” because four of her counsel’s 9 clients “have been transferred out of state without cause or warning.” Dkt. No. 2 at 2. This, without 10 more, does not support an inference that she is likely to be transferred to another state. This 11 speculation is not enough to establish that imminent harm is likely. See, e.g., Amylin Pharms., Inc. 12 v. Eli Lilly & Co., 456 F. App'x 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that because an injury is not 13 imminent “but rather may occur at some indefinite time in the future, the injury does not support 14 injunctive relief”). Finally, Flores Torres’s motion is completely devoid of any argument or 15 evidence that she is at risk of imminent removal. See generally Dkt. No. 2. 16 Because Flores Torres has not shown that imminent harm is likely, the Court cannot grant 17 the “extraordinary remedy” she requests. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 . Moreover, the Court’s 18 December 28, 2025 Order requiring Respondents to provide Petitioner with notice prior to transfer 19 adequately addresses the concern that Flores Torres may be transferred “without cause or 20 warning.” Dkt. No. 3 at 2. 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons stated above, Flores Torres’s request for a TRO preventing removal or 23 transfer, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED for failure to establish imminent injury. [24] 1 Flores Torres’s counsel is DIRECTED to review this District’s General Order 10-25, which 2 overlaps with the relief sought in the TRO motion. General Order 10-25 “is intended to provide a 3 prompt resolution to habeas petitions that should reduce the contemporaneous filing of motions 4 for temporary restraining orders[.]” W.D. Wash. Gen. Ord. 10-25 at 3 (Dec. 18, 2025), available 5 at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/general-orders-current. To that end, the Order provides that, in 6 immigration habeas cases, the Court will automatically enter a standard scheduling order that 7 requires the Government to provide at least 48 hours’ notice before a petitioner is removed or 8 transferred. Id. at 3, 6. Accordingly, “[m]otions for temporary restraining orders should be reserved 9 for matters where the petitioner alleges imminent, irreparable harm, such as imminent removal 10 from the United States.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Such motions “must meet the requirements of 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.” Id. [12] 13 Dated this 29th day of December, 2025. 14 A 15 Lauren King United States District Judge