Garcia v. Albarran
Marlon Mauricio Funes Garcia v. Sergio Albarran, Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; David J. Venturella, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Todd Blanche, Attorney General of the United States, acting in their official capacities
- Beth Freeman
- 5:26-cv-10634
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Funes Garcia v. Albarran: Judge Freeman granted a temporary restraining order requiring release and barring removal or re-detention.
Marlon Mauricio Funes Garcia was ordered released from immigration custody and protected from re-detention or removal while the temporary restraining order remains in effect; the respondent immigration and federal officials must comply and respond before the scheduled preliminary-injunction hearing.
What happened
In Marlon Mauricio Funes Garcia v. Sergio Albarran, Marlon Mauricio Funes Garcia asked the court for immediate release from immigration custody after officials re-arrested him at an immigration check-in. He had attended all required immigration hearings and check-ins, had a pending immigration case, and had been charged—but not convicted—with insurance fraud.
The court found that all four factors for emergency relief favored him. It found serious questions about whether detaining him without a conviction and without proper procedures violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. The court also considered the harms of detention, including his spine and leg condition and difficulty helping with his immigration and criminal cases.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the temporary restraining order without requiring security. Respondents must release him immediately, may not re-detain him or remove him from the judicial district or the United States while the order is effective, and must explain at a September 24, 2026 hearing why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Albarran · No. 5:26-cv-10634
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 17, 2026
Background
Marlon Mauricio Funes Garcia filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and an application for a temporary restraining order, an emergency court order intended to prevent immediate harm while the court considers longer-term relief. He sought release from custody held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The opinion states that Garcia is a 39-year-old citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in 2024. The Department of Homeland Security issued him a notice charging inadmissibility under sections 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and released him to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture proceedings. After moving to the San Francisco Bay Area, he filed a change of address, timely filed his immigration applications, and attended every immigration hearing and required ICE check-in.
In August 2026, Garcia was charged with insurance fraud in San Mateo County Superior Court. The opinion states that he was not arrested or convicted and that he appeared at a September 16, 2026 hearing with criminal defense counsel. He was re-arrested when he attended a regularly scheduled ICE check-in. He also reported spine and leg pain and stiffness from a recent accident.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the four-factor standard for a temporary restraining order: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. It also found that the requirements for issuing the order without advance notice to the opposing parties were satisfied because Garcia’s papers showed that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the respondents could respond. His counsel had provided notice of the request to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California.
The court found that Garcia had shown at least serious questions about the merits of his procedural due process claim and that the balance of hardships sharply favored him. It stated that a noncitizen released during removal proceedings has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. The court reasoned that detention without a conviction raised serious liberty and procedural due process concerns and required a showing of exigent circumstances that was not present. It also stated that Garcia did not appear to be a flight risk or danger because he had remained free since 2024, complied with his immigration obligations, and attended every required check-in. The court emphasized that being charged with a crime did not eliminate due process rights.
The court found likely irreparable harm from immigration detention, including economic burdens and the effect of detention on Garcia’s spine and leg condition. It found that the balance of equities favored Garcia because denying relief would cause a severe deprivation of his constitutional liberty interest, while granting relief would cause the respondents only a short delay in detaining him. The court also found that the public interest favored protecting constitutional procedural safeguards.
Order
The court granted Garcia’s application for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending further briefing and a hearing. It ordered the respondents to release him immediately and barred them from re-detaining him while the order remained effective. The respondents were also barred from removing him from the judicial district or from the United States; if they had already removed him from the district, they were ordered to return him.
The court issued the order without requiring security because it perceived no prejudice to the respondents. It ordered the respondents to show cause at an in-person hearing at 9:00 a.m. on September 24, 2026, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The order required a response by 12:00 p.m. on September 21, a reply by 12:00 p.m. on September 23, service of the petition, summons, and order by 12:00 p.m. on September 18, and a compliance status report by 4:00 p.m. on September 18. The temporary restraining order was to remain in effect until 4:00 p.m. on October 1, 2026.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.