District of Nevada • 2:25-cv-01542

#1

Aug 20, 2025

Complaint

#2

Aug 20, 2025

Certificate Interested Parties

Aug 20, 2025

Case randomly assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. (ALZ)

#3

Aug 21, 2025

Summons Issued as to USA

Aug 21, 2025

Assign Judges in Civil Case

#4

Aug 25, 2025

Order

#5

Aug 26, 2025

Motion Preliminary Injunction

#6

Aug 26, 2025

Declaration

#7

Aug 26, 2025

Declaration

#8

Aug 27, 2025

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#9

Aug 28, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/28/2025.Pending before the Court is the 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff/Petitioner on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The Court has reviewed the Motion and finds expedited briefing and consideration is warranted.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants/Respondents' response to the 5 Motion is due on or before September 3, 2025.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff/Petitioner's reply in support of the 5 Motion is due on or before September 5, 2025.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on the 5 Motion is set for 9/9/2025 at 01:00 PM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 08/28/2025)

#11

Aug 28, 2025

Motion Extend/Shorten Time

Aug 28, 2025

Minute Order

#12

Aug 29, 2025

Response

#13

Aug 29, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 8/29/2025.Pending before the Court is the 11 Motion to Extend Time, which seeks a one-week extension of time for Respondents to respond to the 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respondents counsel states additional time is needed due to her three-day medical leave and the upcoming holiday weekend. Petitioner, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, opposes the extension, asserting that one attorney's medical leave and routine scheduling concerns cannot outweigh Petitioners' liberty interest in having the lawfulness of their ongoing detention adjudicated on an expedited basis.The Court agrees with Petitioners that Respondents have not shown good cause for the extension under the circumstances. The Court further notes that the instant Petition raises legal issues similar to those raised in another habeas petition pending before this Court, which Ms. Tomova has already briefed. See Herrera Torralba v. Knight, Case No. 2:25-cv-01366-RFB-DJA, ECF No. 21. Accordingly, the Court finds the current briefing schedule and hearing date provides Respondents sufficient time to respond.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 11 Motion to Extend is DENIED. The briefing schedule and hearing date set forth in the Court's 9 Minute Order remains in effect.(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 08/29/2025)

Aug 29, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Extend/Shorten Time

#15

Sep 03, 2025

Response

#17

Sep 05, 2025

Supplement

#18

Sep 05, 2025

Supplement

#19

Sep 05, 2025

Declaration

#20

Sep 05, 2025

Reply

#22

Sep 08, 2025

Exhibit

#23

Sep 09, 2025

Declaration

#24

Sep 09, 2025

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 9/9/2025 before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Crtrm Administrator: D Smith; Pla Counsel: Virgina Tomova and Summer Johnson; Def Counsel: Daniel Lippmann; Court Reporter: P Ganci; Time of Hearing: 1:13 - 2:18; Courtroom: 7C The Court makes preliminary remarks and hears from counsel as to the 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the public interest favors an injunction. Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). As stated on the record, the Court finds that DHS' invocation of the automatic stay pending appeal via C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) of the Immigration Judge's (IJ) custody redetermination, which ordered Petitioner Maldonado Vazquez released on bond, to continue to detain him violates his procedural due process rights, both facially and as applied. The automatic stay is invoked unilaterally to nullify the due process protections provided by a bond hearing, after a noncitizen detainee has successfully established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Government has failed to justify the detainee's continued detention. The stay is invoked unilaterally by an agency official with no discernable standard to guide the official's decision and no meaningful process to challenge or seek review of the decision. The constitutionality of the automatic stay is further not reviewable by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in resolving DHS's appeal of the IJ's bond order, and even if it were, the period of prolonged unconstitutional detention pending the BIA's resolution of the appeal constitutes irreparable harm, therefore prudential administrative exhaustion before the BIA on this issue is futile. See e.g., Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining the futility exception to the prudential administrative exhaustion requirement carved for constitutional challenges to... [DHS] procedures.) (citations omitted); see also Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (prudential exhaustion is waived where pursuit of administrative remedies would result in irreparable injury). As such, the Court finds Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on the merits of his due process challenge to the automatic stay. The factors under Matthews weigh heavily in favor of Petitioner because (1) the private interest affected is the fundamental liberty interest in being free from imprisonment; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through unjustified detention is extraordinarily high in that the regulation allows an agency official who has lost in an adversarial process to unilaterally and automatically override an immigration judge's decision with no meaningful procedural protections; (3) the Government's interest in continued detention is minimal where an immigration judge has already determined the detainee is neither a danger to society nor a flight risk, and the use of existing procedural protections imposes no additional fiscal or administrative burden on the Government. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976); see also Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2022) (collecting cases and applying the Matthews test to a constitutional challenge to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)). Further, it follows inexorably from the Courts determination that Petitioner will continue to be deprived of his physical liberty unconstitutionally in the absence of an injunction that Petitioner has met his burden to show immediate and irreparable harm. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 995 (9th Cir. 2017). Likewise, the minimal, if not nonexistent, burden on the Government of preserving the status quoi.e., ordering Petitioners release consistent with the order of the IJas compared to the preventable human suffering of Petitioners continued detention, demonstrates that the balance of the equities and public interest tip sharply in Petitioners favor. Id. at 995-96. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, with a written order setting forth the Courts ruling in full to follow. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall release Petitioner from ICE custody by 4:00 p.m. PST, subject to the bond conditions imposed by the IJ. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have until September 11, 2025 to satisfy the bond conditions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel shall meet and confer to then file a proposed scheduling order as to discovery and expedited class certification briefing by September 12, 2025. Additional appearances of class counsel are also requested by September 12, 2025. A more detailed written order on the above ruling and the remaining statutory and constitutional issues raised in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction will follow. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 09/09/2025)

Sep 09, 2025

Motion Hearing AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#26

Sep 10, 2025

Motion Stay Case or Discovery

#27

Sep 10, 2025

Motion Miscellaneous Relief

#28

Sep 11, 2025

Notice Other

#29

Sep 11, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/11/2025. Pending before the Court is the unopposed 26 Motion to Stay this case and 27 Motion to Stay the September 12, 2025 deadline for a proposed scheduling order regarding class certification, which seeks to stay the September 12th deadline until the Court rules on whether to stay this case as a whole.Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the 27 Motion is GRANTED. The September 12, 2025 scheduling order deadline is STAYED pending the Court's ruling on the 26 Motion to Stay this case. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 09/11/2025)

Sep 11, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

#30

Sep 17, 2025

Order

Sep 29, 2025

Minute Order Setting Hearing