1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
EASTERN DIVISION
10
11
JOEL PELEGRINO ASCUTIN, Case No. 5:26-cv-00481-KK-AGR
12
Petitioner, Assigned to: Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato
13
v. ORDER GRANTING
14 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
D. MARIN, et al.,
15 [NOTE CHANGES BY COURT]
Respondents.
16
17
18
The Court has considered Petitioner Joel Pelegrino Ascutin’s application for a
19
preliminary injunction and all briefing, records, and evidence in this case.
20
“The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the
21
standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Order Granting Petitioner’s Ex Parte
22
Application for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO,” Dkt. 16) at 3 (citing Stuhlbarg
23
Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001)). For the
24
reasons it granted the temporary restraining order, and in light of Respondents’ failure
25
to file a timely Response as to why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction,
26
see TRO at 10 (ordering Respondents to show cause in writing no later than March 3,
27
2026), the Court now grants a preliminary injunction. Absent preliminary injunctive
1 | | and/or removal to a third country without notice and an opportunity to be heard, during
the pendency of this case. TRO at 4-8; see id. (“Petitioner’s release is necessary to
3 | | return him to the status quo, which is the last uncontested status which preceded the
4| | pending controversy|:] ... Petitioner’s release on supervision before his current re-
5 || detention.” (cleaned up)).
6 The Court therefore GRANTS a preliminary injunction and ORDERS as
7|| follows:
8 (1) Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless and □□□□
9 they follow the procedural safeguards set forth in 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4,
10 241.13, and all other relevant applicable statutes and regulations, includin.
1] providing him a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decistonmaker
12 where Respondents bear the burden of demonstrating by clear and
13 convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger such that hi
14 physical custody is required;
15 (2) Respondents are ENJOINED from removing Petitioner to a third country
16 without notice and an opportunity to be heard; and
17 (3) Respondents are ENJOINED from modifying the release conditions of
18 Petitioner’s order of supervision prior to his December 2025 arrest and re-
19 detention.
20 Failure to comply with this Order will result in sanctions. Pursuant to General
Order No. 05-07, further proceedings on the merits of the petition are referred to the
Magistrate Judge.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 | bun | —
25] | DATED: March 9, 2026 By:
26 HON. KENLY KIYA KATO
United States District Judge
27
28 | | Presented by:
1
/s/ Michael Tayag
2 MICHAEL TAYAG
Deputy Federal Public Defender
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
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.