Chestnut

M.R.R. v. Christopher Chestnut et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 24, 20251:25-cv-01517California9,836 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

18 Before the Court for decision is M.R.R.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request for a temporary 19 restraining order, (Doc. 2), filed in conjunction with her petition for a writ of habeas corpus 20 brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her ongoing immigration detention (Doc. 1), and 21 Respondents’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 15.) Having evaluated the TRO request, Respondents’ 22 opposition, (Doc. 11), Petitioner’s reply, (Doc. 13), and Respondents’ supplemental filing 23 alongside the entire record, the Court converts the matter into a motion for preliminary 24 injunction, GRANTS that motion IN PART, and REFERS the matter to the assigned magistrate 25 judge for a determination on the merits. Furthermore, the Court DENIES Respondents’ Motion 26 27 1 Upon agreement of the parties, the Court converts the motion for temporary restraining order into one for 28 preliminary injunction. (Doc. 11 at 1, fn. 1; Doc. 13 at 7.) The parties have also affirmatively declined an 1 to Strike.2 2 II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 Petitioner is a citizen and national of Peru who entered the United States on or about 4 November 7, 2022, at which time she and her…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.