govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-03839-0

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 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
MBAMOH PEMAMBOH HILARY, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
GOLDEN STATE ANNEX WARDEN, et 
al., 
Respondents. 
No. 1:26-cv-03839-DC-SCR (HC) 
 
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PETITION 
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
(Doc. Nos. 1, 3, 10) 
 This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order 
(Doc. No. 3), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 
U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his ongoing immigration detention. (Doc. No. 1.) 
This court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by Count One of the petition 
(Doc. No. 1 at 9–10). Specifically, this court has found that the Due Process Clause requires that, 
in order for the government to re-detain a noncitizen who has been previously released on bond or 
conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), 
the government must provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the 
noncitizen’s eligibility for bond must be considered. See Selis Tinoco v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01762-
DC-JDP, 2025 WL 3567862 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2025) (granting motion for temporary restraining 
order and immediate release of the petitioner based on his likelihood of success on the merits of 
his due process claim); Labrador-Prato v. Noem, 1:25-cv-01598-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3458802 

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 
 
 
 2 
 
 
(E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2025) (same); D.L.C. v. Wofford, 1:25-cv-01996-DC-JDP, 2026 WL 25511 
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026) (same); Altin v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv-00792-DC-CSK, 2026 WL 
309563 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (granting motion for temporary restraining order and habeas 
petition as to the petitioner’s due process claim). 
 On May 20, 2026, the court issued an order informing the parties that it was considering 
ruling directly on the petition and asking both parties whether they oppose simultaneous 
resolution of the motion for temporary restraining order and habeas petition. (Doc. No. 7.) The 
court also directed Respondents to address whether there are any factual or legal issues in this 
case that materially distinguish it from this court’s prior orders in Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, 
and D.L.C. (Id.) 
 On May 22, 2026, Respondents filed their opposition to Petitioner’s motion for temporary 
restraining order in which they oppose Petitioner’s motion on the same grounds as those 
addressed by the court in the aforementioned cases, but acknowledge that “there does not appear 
to be any substantive factual or legal issues in this case that materially distinguish it from the 
cases identified in the Court’s Order.” (Doc. No. 10 at 2.) Respondents further indicate that they 
“do not oppose, and in fact, respectfully request that the Court resolve the underlying habeas 
petition on the current briefing and without a hearing.” (Id.) On May 30, 2026, Petitioner filed his 
reply indicating that he likewise does not oppose the court ruling directly on the petition. (Doc. 
No. 11 at 1.) 
 Because Respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 
factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the court’s aforementioned prior 
decisions, the court will grant Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) 
and petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) as to Count One for the reasons set forth in 
///// 
///// 
///// 
///// 
///// 

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 
 
 
 3 
 
 
the court’s order in Altin.1 Further, as the court found in Altin, the proper remedy for 
Respondents’ failure to provide Petitioner with a constitutionally compliant pre-deprivation bond 
hearing is Petitioner’s immediate release. Id. at 12–13. 
 Accordingly, 
1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) and motion for a 
temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) are GRANTED as follows: 
a. Petitioner Mbamoh Pemamboh Hilary (A-246-910-747) shall be released 
immediately from Respondents’ custody with the same conditions he was 
subject to immediately prior to his detention on March 30, 2026. 
Respondents shall not impose any additional restriction on him, such as 
electronic monitoring, unless that is determined to be necessary at a future 
pre-deprivation/custody hearing; 
b. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 
seven (7) days’ notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond 
hearing before a neutral arbiter, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond 
must be considered; and 
c. This order does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may 
detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner becomes subject to an executable 
final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that final order of 
removal; 
2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED; 
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Golden State 
 
1 Because the court is granting the petition on the due process claim (Count One), the court need 
not address any additional grounds raised in the petition. See N.K. v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00292-
KES-SAB (HC), 2026 WL 130345, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) (granting habeas petition as to 
the second count of the petition and not addressing other counts because the petitioner was 
entitled to the relief sought based on the court’s ruling as to that second count); Constantinovici v. 
Bondi, No. 3:25-cv-02405-RBM-AHG, 2025 WL 2898985, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025) 
(granting habeas petition based on due process claim and “declin[ing] to address the remaining 
grounds in the Petition for seeking release”). Indeed, Petitioner is entitled to the habeas relief he 
seeks based on the court’s ruling as to Count One. 

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 
 
 
 4 
 
 
Annex Detention Facility; and 
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Petitioner and close this 
case. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 8, 2026 
 
 
___________________________ 
Dena Coggins 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight