Silva v. Lynch et al
Filing
9
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 2 Motion for TRO. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
JOEL E SILVA,
Petitioner,
13
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
v.
14
15
Case No. 16-CV-05435-LHK
Re: Dkt. No. 2
SARA SANDANA, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On September 22, 2016, Joel Empleo Silva (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Habeas
18
19
Corpus and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 2 (collectively
20
referred to as “Pet.”). This case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Corley on September 23, 2016
21
and reassigned to the undersigned judge at 12:49 p.m. on September 23, 2016. Before the court is
22
Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Id.
23
I.
24
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2015, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner’s removal from the
25
United States. Pet. ¶ 13. Petitioner was a legal permanent resident convicted four times of petty
26
theft. Id. The IJ found Petitioner removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having
27
committed crimes involving moral turpitude. Id.
28
1
Case No. 16-CV-05435-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
On December 21, 2015, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Petitioner’s
2
appeal. Id. ¶ 15. At a time unspecified by the Petitioner, the BIA refused to release Petitioner on
3
bond because the BIA found that Petitioner was a danger to “property.” Id. ¶ 6.
On January 13, 2016, Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision to the Ninth
4
5
Circuit Court of Appeals. Id. ¶ 16. On June 10, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel hearing the case
6
granted Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal. Id. Petitioner’s appeal is currently pending. Id.
7
at 4.
During Petitioner’s removal proceedings and during the pendency of his appeal, he has
8
been a detainee of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). On the morning of
10
September 22, 2016, Petitioner’s counsel learned that, on September 22, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Petitioner would be transferred from the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, California
12
to a detention facility in Louisiana. Id. at 17.
13
The same day, Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and Motion for a Temporary
14
Restraining Order. Petitioner’s petition seeks two forms of relief. First, Petitioner requests that
15
the court enjoin ICE from transferring Petitioner to Lousiana or, alternatively, order ICE to return
16
Petitioner to the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, California. Pet. ¶ 22–23. Second,
17
Petitioner requests that the court order Petitioner’s release from ICE custody. Pet. ¶ 24. Petitioner
18
moves for a temporary restraining order on both forms of relief. Pet. at 1–2.
19
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
20
The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for
21
issuing a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832,
22
839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). Preliminary relief is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded
23
upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
24
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that
25
he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
26
of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is
27
in the public interest.” Id. at 20. “[T]he decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests
28
2
Case No. 16-CV-05435-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
within the equitable discretion of the district courts,” and “such discretion must be exercised
2
consistent with traditional principles of equity.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S.
3
388, 394 (2006).
4
III.
DISCUSSION
5
As discussed above, Petitioner seeks two forms of relief in the instant motion for a
6
temporary restraining order. First, Petitioner requests that the court enjoin ICE from transferring
7
Petitioner to Louisiana or order ICE to return Petitioner to Richmond, California. Pet. ¶ 22–23.
8
Second, Petitioner requests that the court order Petitioner’s release from ICE custody. Pet. ¶ 24.
9
The Court addresses each of these forms of relief in turn.
10
With respect to Petitioner’s first claim, Petitioner fails to establish a likelihood of success
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
on the merits. In Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and petition for habeas
12
corpus, Petitioner cites to no legal authority showing that Petitioner has a right to a specific
13
detention location. Therefore, Petitioner fails to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits
14
with respect to Petitioner’s transfer by ICE, and the Court need not reach the other Winter factors.
15
See Kuznetsov v. Clark, 2007 WL 1655233 (D. Wash June 6, 2007) (denying petitioner’s motion
16
for temporary restraining order seeking to prevent a transfer from an ICE facility in Washington to
17
a “prison in Alabama” because petitioner “provide[d] no argument or legal authority showing that
18
the Court has any basis or authority to enter such relief”); Rosales-Leon v. Chertoff, 2007 WL
19
1655237 (D. Wash. June 6, 2007) (same).
20
With respect to Petitioner’s second claim, Petitioner has also failed to show a likelihood of
21
success on the merits. Petitioner asserts that the BIA denied Petitioner’s release bond based on
22
Petitioner’s four prior petty theft convictions. Pet. ¶ 20. Petitioner asserts that the BIA’s denial
23
of bond is in violation of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), which holds that the
24
government must show that the detainee is a “flight risk or a danger to the community” by clear
25
and convincing evidence. Id. at 1203. Singh also notes that, in some cases, denials of bond based
26
on criminal history alone “may not be warranted.” Id. at 1206. Petitioner’s arguments do not
27
establish a likelihood of success on the merits. First, while the table of contents in Petitioner’s
28
3
Case No. 16-CV-05435-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1
petition lists the “BIA decision denying bond” as Exhibit C, the Petitioner fails to attach that
2
decision to the petition. See Pet. at 10. Second, Petitioner fails to cite authority or explain why
3
Singh’s conditional statement that a denial of bond may not be warranted under some
4
circumstances if based solely on prior petty theft convictions forbids the BIA from basing its
5
decision on prior petty theft convictions in all circumstances, or in Petitioner’s case in particular.
6
Additionally, Petitioner fails to cite authority or explain why the BIA’s use of Petitioner’s criminal
7
record as the basis for its decision denying release shows that the BIA did not apply the required
8
clear and convincing evidence standard. Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish a likelihood of success
9
on the merits on this claim as well, and the Court need not reach the other Winter factors.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order is
12
DENIED.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
16
17
Dated: September 23, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 16-CV-05435-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?