ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [DOC. # 2] AND SETTING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

JOHN A. HOUSTON, District Judge.

On March 20, 2014, petitioner Sergio Botello-Rangel ("petitioner") filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with a application for a temporary restraining order. Petitioner seeks an order restraining and enjoining respondents Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Daniel Ragsdale, Acting Director of ICE, and Gregory Archambealt, San Diego Field Director of ICE ("respondents") from incarcerating or detaining petitioner until a preliminary injunction motion can be heard and decided or, alternatively, for an immediate ruling on the instant writ of habeas corpus. See Doc. # 2 at 2-3. Because petitioner filed his application ex parte, this Court deemed it appropriate to direct petitioner to serve respondents with the application prior to this Court's ruling. Petitioner filed proof of service upon respondents at 3:26 p.m. on March 20, 2014.

Now, after a careful consideration of the pleadings presented, this Court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently met the requirements for issuance of a temporary restraining order pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims as well as that serious questions going to the merits of plaintiff's claims have been raised and the balance of hardships tip sharply in plaintiff's favor. Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. County of Fed'n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 873 (9th Cir. 2002); Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 1999); Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1998). Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from incarcerating or detaining plaintiff until a preliminary injunction may be heard and decided. This Court finds that the posting of a security bond is not required in this case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c). In addition, this Court deems it appropriate to set a hearing date and briefing schedule for petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this temporary restraining order will expire on March 28, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. absent further order of the Court.