Esteban Quiroga-Chaparro v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTEBAN QUIROGA-CHAPARRO, No. 1:25-cv-1731 AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On December 31, 2025, the court issued an order granting petitioner’s motion for a 18 temporary restraining order and directed respondents to release petitioner from their custody. 19 ECF No. 14. Respondents were also ordered to show cause why the court should not issue a 20 preliminary injunction on the same terms as the temporary restraining order. Id. Respondents 21 have not filed any response to the order to show cause and their time to do so has passed.1 22 Because the standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to the 23 standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 24 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), the court finds petitioner has sufficiently shown that all 25 four Winter2 factors weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief for…