Full Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 YAN TAN; XIN TAN, Case No. 2:26-cv-04329 8 Petitioner, ORDER PROVISIONALLY GRANTING 9 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY v. RESTRAINING ORDER 10 BRUCE SCOTT; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 11 Respondent. 12 13 14 I. ORDER 15 Petitioners are mother and daughter, both natives and citizens of China, who are detained 16 at the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington. Petitioner Xin Tan alleges that 17 she was unlawfully re-detained after previously having been granted bond pending removal 18 proceedings. Dkt. 1 at 4–5. Her mother, Petitioner Yan Tan, alleges that she was detained when 19 she contacted ICE to inquire about her daughter, and that she is being held without an 20 individualized custody determination despite requesting a bond hearing. Dkt. 1 at 3–4. In their 21 motion for temporary restraining order and the supporting declaration of counsel, Petitioners 22 contend that their commissary accounts at NWIPC have been disabled, suggesting they are about 23 to be transferred. Dkt. 3 ¶ 7. They contend that transfer would cause irreparable harm by 24 1 interfering with their access to counsel for both their habeas petition and their underlying 2 removal proceedings. See Dkt. 2 at 4. 3 The Petition raises serious questions regarding potential violations of the Due Process 4 clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and Petitioners have alleged irreparable harm resulting from 5 imminent transfer. 6 The Court may grant a TRO to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status 7 quo. See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 8 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve [] jurisdiction over 9 the matter.”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 10 1. Petitioners’ motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. 2) is provisionally 11 GRANTED pending Respondents’ response to the motion. This grant is solely for 12 the purpose of maintaining the status quo so that the Court may review the merits 13 of the motion after full briefing. 14 2. Respondents ARE PROHIBITED from transferring Petitioners Yan Tan and Xin 15 Tan from this jurisdiction—i.e., the Western District of Washington—without 16 further order. This order shall expire on November 21, 2026 unless modified by 17 the judge assigned to the case. 18 3. Petitioners’ counsel SHALL immediately serve process and a copy of this Order 19 on Respondents. Petitioners’ counsel SHALL immediately contact Respondents’ 20 counsel to provide a copy of this Order and to meet and confer on (1) a briefing 21 schedule for the motion for TRO and (2) whether the government will agree to a 22 stipulated order to not transfer Petitioners to another facility during the pendency 23 of this action. 24 l 4. If the Parties can agree on a briefing schedule, they SHALL file a stipulated 2 proposed briefing schedule with the Court, along with any other stipulations the 3 Parties may agree on for the pendency of this case. If the Parties cannot reach 4 agreement on a briefing schedule, then Respondents SHALL respond to the 5 motion for TRO on the schedule set by Local Civil Rule 65 once service is 6 accomplished. 7 5. After the Court’s regular hours resume and the case is randomly assigned, the 8 Parties SHALL contact the courtroom deputy of the assigned judge by email if 9 they wish to schedule oral argument. 10 11 Dated this 7th day of November, 2026, at 1:10 AM. 13 Tiffang M. Cartwright United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24