Campos v. Albarran

Background

Jose Ivar Pineda Campos, described in the order as an asylum seeker from Nicaragua, filed a habeas petition—a request for court review of detention—against Sergio Albarran, the Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement office; Todd Lyons, the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pam Bondi, the U.S. Attorney General. The order says all respondents were sued in their official capacities.

Pineda Campos first sought a temporary restraining order requiring his release from detention. A duty judge granted that request. Pineda Campos then sought a preliminary injunction barring the respondents from detaining him without a prior hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.

Court’s reasoning

The court said the salient facts were undisputed and that the government had not indicated that any material facts had changed since the temporary restraining order. The court found that Pineda Campos had raised a serious legal question and shown a likelihood of success on whether he could be detained under the circumstances presented. It also found that he made a sufficient showing on the other factors considered when granting a preliminary injunction.

The court said the government’s opposing arguments had been addressed and rejected in cases it described as substantively identical, and it incorporated that prior discussion and reasoning. The order does not provide the full analysis from those prior cases.

Ruling and terms

The court granted a preliminary injunction. It enjoined the respondents, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and people acting with them or at their direction who know about the injunction from:

1. Detaining Jose Ivar Pineda Campos without a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker; and 2. Transferring Jose Ivar Pineda Campos out of the Northern District of California without the court’s prior approval.

The court stated that the government could ask to modify the injunction if circumstances materially changed. Because it found no realistic likelihood of harm to the respondents from the injunction, it did not require Pineda Campos to provide security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The parties were directed to jointly propose a briefing schedule for the habeas petition by November 28, 2025.