(HC) Martin v. Phillips et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 3/12/2025 ORDERING that the Court's 14 Temporary Restraining Order be ADOPTED as an Order for Preliminary Injunction; ORDERING Respondents to transfer Petitioner back into prerelease custody; RESTRAINING and ENJOINING Respondents from removing Petitioner from prerelease custody based on his immigration status; ORDERING that no bond be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). (Deputy Clerk GJM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DUMITRU MARTIN,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:25-cv-00687-DJC-AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ARINDA PHILLIPS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

17
18

On March 7, 2025, this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO (ECF

19

No. 14)) ordering the release of Petitioner Dumitru Martin to prerelease custody. Prior

20

to issuing the temporary restraining order, the Court received briefing from both

21

parties and held a hearing on the matter. In the Order, the Court required the parties

22

to meet and confer as to whether further evidence or briefing need be presented or

23

whether the Court may adopt the temporary restraining order as a preliminary

24

injunction pending final adjudication on the merits. The parties stipulated that no

25

further briefing on the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction was

26

warranted. (ECF No. 16.)

27
28

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a
1

1

preliminary injunction must show (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its

2

claims, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary

3

injunction, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor and (4) that an injunction is in

4

the public interest. Id. at 20. The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is

5

essentially the same as for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales

6

Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 897 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the

7

analysis for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions is “substantially

8

identical”).

9

The Court finds, based on its prior analysis (see generally TRO), that the Winter

10

factors weigh in favor of the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, the

11

Court will convert its previously issued temporary restraining order into a preliminary

12

injunction pending final adjudication on the merits.

13

The Court may issue injunctive relief “only if the movant gives security in an

14

amount the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any

15

party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P 65(c).

16

District courts are “afforded wide discretion in setting the amount of the bond, and the

17

bond amount may be zero if there is no evidence the party will suffer damages from

18

an injunction.” Connecticut Gen. Life, Ins. Co, v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d

19

878, 882 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). Respondents have not requested

20

bond in this matter and the Court does not find that bond is necessary here. Thus, the

21

Court declines to require a bond.

22
23
24
25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No.
14) is ADOPTED as an Order for Preliminary Injunction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, until further Order of the Court:
1. Respondents are ordered to transfer Mr. Dumitru Martin back into

26

prerelease custody. Respondents are further restrained and enjoined

27

from removing Petitioner from prerelease custody based on his

28

immigration status.
2

1
2

2. No bond shall be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(c).

3
4
5
6

Dated: March 12, 2025

/s/ Daniel J. Calabretta
THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3