International Refugee Assistance Project et al

Filing 6

ORDER by Josephine L. Staton enjoining Respondents from (1) preventing access between Petitioners and Petitioners' Attorneys, and (2) transferring Petitioners to any location outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, pending a hearing on Petitioners' emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction Relief, which the Court sets for this Monday, March 6, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT,
as Next Friend of JOHN DOES I–IV
and JANE DOE; and JOHN DOES I–IV
and JANE DOE,
Petitioners,
v.
JOHN F. KELLY; Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”);
KEVIN K. McALEENAN,
Acting Commissioner, CBP; and
MITCHELL MERRIAM, Los Angeles
Field Director, CBP,

CASE No. 2:17-cv-01761

ORDER TO TEMPORARILY
ENJOIN TRANSFER OF
PETITIONERS OUT OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT

Respondents.

23
24
25

A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be

26

awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v.

27

Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The purpose of a TRO is to preserve

28

the status quo before a preliminary injunction hearing may be held. Granny Goose

1

Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda City,

2

415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the issuance of

3

TROs and preliminary injunctions, and courts apply the same standard to both.

4

Frontline Med. Assocs., Inc. v. Coventry Healthcare Workers Comp., Inc., 620 F.

5

Supp. 2d 1109, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

6

Under these circumstances, a party must show “‘serious questions going to the

7

merits’ [,] a balance of hardships that tips sharply toward the plaintiff,” a likelihood of

8

irreparable harm, and that the injunction is in the public interest. Alliance for the Wild

9

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). A “serious question” is one

10

on which the movant “has a fair chance of success on the merits.” Sierra On–Line,

11

Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984). A court may issue

12

a TRO without notice to the adverse party where specific facts in an affidavit “clearly

13

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant

14

before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).

15

Upon reviewing Petitioners’ Emergency Motion and the declarations submitted

16

with the Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory

17

and Injunctive Relief, (Docs. 1, 1-1, 1-2, 4), the Court finds that Petitioners have

18

established at least a serious question going to the merits of their claims; that the

19

balance of hardships tips decisively in their favor; a likelihood of irreparable harm; and

20

that an injunction is in the public interest.

21

Based on the facts described in the declarations submitted with the Petitioners’

22

Petition and Complaint, Petitioners have a fair chance of success on the merits of their

23

Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection claims and their claims under the

24

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27), 1153(b)(4), 1181 and 8

25

C.F.R. § 292.5(b)). There is a likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm here

26

where the Emergency Motion and declarations represent that the four of the

27

Petitioners, a mother and three children, are to be separated from the husband/father

28

and placed on a flight out of this Court’s jurisdiction within an hour. The mother
2

1

cannot read or speak English and her children are aged 7 years-, 6 years-, and 8

2

months-old. The balance of equities tip in their favor and the injunction is in the

3

public interest. For these same reasons, the Court concludes that it is necessary to

4

issue this Order without notice and set the hearing for the earliest possible time.

5

The Court therefore enjoins Respondents from (1) preventing access between

6

Petitioners and Petitioners’ Attorneys, and (2) transferring Petitioners to any location

7

outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of

8

California, pending a hearing on Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for Temporary

9

Injunctive Relief, which the Court sets for this Monday, March 6 at 1:30 p.m.

10
11
12

Dated: March 4, 2017, 5:10 p.m.

13
14

_________________________________________

15

HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3