Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01846/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01846-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

- 1 -

##cv####

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA ESTEFANIA LEMAGUARACA, et al.,

 Petitioners,

Case No. 19-cv-01846-BAS-KSC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE 

TO MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF No. 1]

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General 

of the United States, et al.,

 Respondents.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2019, Petitioners Sandra Estefania Lema-Guaraca and her minor 

child, Derick Joshua Morocho Lema, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

requesting intervention by this Court to prevent their removal from the United States. (ECF 

No. 1 at ¶ 20.) Petitioners allege that they entered without inspection on June 28, 2019 and

were improperly placed in the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) program. (Id. ¶ 3.) 

Petitioners have been paroled into the United States for a hearing with an immigration 

judge. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

Petitioners claim that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has

improperly placed in MPP proceedings, forcing Petitioners “to prepare their asylum cases 

while awaiting their removal proceedings in Mexico.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Further, Petitioners 

Case 3:19-cv-01846-BAS-KSC Document 2 Filed 09/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

##cv####

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contend that although the Immigration Judge presiding over their removal proceedings has 

acknowledged that DHS lacks statutory authority for their placement of Petitioners in the 

MPP program, he “cannot equitably remedy DHS’ actions” and instead intends to terminate 

the proceedings. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff state that termination of their case would nevertheless 

result in Petitioners’ return to Mexico where they would be “required to begin the entire 

process all over again, or risk returning to their certain deaths in their home countries.” (Id.

¶¶ 7, 9, 12.) 

Petitioners allege that they “face imminent removal from the United States on this 

date, September 26, 2019 immediately following their hearing which is scheduled to begin 

at 1:00 p.m., at which time Petitioners anticipate that the Immigration Judge will terminate 

their MPP cases . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 26.) Thus, Petitioners seek the instant temporary restraining 

order until this Court “has had the opportunity to consider and rule on a preliminary 

injunction or until an appropriate process has been implemented to determine whether, in 

light of current conditions and circumstances, Petitioners are entitled to mandatory 

protection from removal.” (Id. at ¶ 28.)

II. ANALYSIS

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court

may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the 

adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a 

verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or 

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made 

to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Upon review of the instant motion, it does not appear that 

Petitioners have included an affidavit or verified complaint establishing the specific facts 

showing their immediate and irreparable injury. See id. Petitioners therefore have not 

satisfied the procedural requirements of Rule 65(b)(1). See, e.g., Grande v. Sharper 

Future, No. 2:19-CV-02471-ODW (AGR), 2019 WL 1506011, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 

2019) (denying motion for temporary restraining order where movant did not submit 

Case 3:19-cv-01846-BAS-KSC Document 2 Filed 09/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

##cv####

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

evidence or an affidavit establishing that immediate and irreparable injury before notice 

could be given to responding party).

As such, the Court construes Petitioners’ motion for a temporary restraining order 

as a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring a response from Respondents. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) (“The Court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the 

adverse party.”); see also Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 

(1974)) (“The stringent restrictions imposed . . . by Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte

temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to 

the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard 

has been granted both sides of a dispute.”). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file a response no later than 

September 30, 2019. Further, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this 

Order on the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01846-BAS-KSC Document 2 Filed 09/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3