Lopez-Velasquez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

JORGE ANTONIO LOPEZ VALASQUEZ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-0024

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

BRIAN ACUNA, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction (Record Document 4) filed by the habeas petitioner in this case, Jorge Antonio

Lopez Valasquez (“Petitioner”). On January 5, 2026, Petitioner filed his Habeas Petition

(Record Document 1), followed by the instant Motion the next day. The Habeas Petition

seeks enforcement of his rights as a member of the Bond Denial Class, more specifically

he asks the Court to order his release from immigration custody, or in the alternative, to

order the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to conduct a bond hearing

under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Record Document 1 at 3–4. The instant motion seeks a

TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)

and all other Respondents from removing Petitioner from the United States and from

transferring him out of the jurisdiction of this Court during the pendency of his Habeas

Petition. See Record Document 4-2 at 7.

An applicant for a Temporary Restraining Order must demonstrate each of the

following: (1) a substantial likelihood his cause will succeed on the merits, (2) a substantial

threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) the threatened injury

outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the opposing party, and (4)

granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Misquitta v. Warden Pine

Prairie ICE Processing Center, 353 F. Supp. 518, 521 (W.D. La. Nov. 16, 2018) (citing

Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430 (5th Cir. 1981)). The

decision of whether to grant or deny a TRO lies in the district court’s discretion. See Moore

v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2017). And courts should deny such motions more

often than not. See Albright v. City of New Orleans, 46 F.Supp.2d 523, 532 (E.D. La.

1999) (explaining that temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary relief and rarely

issued.”); see also Suburban Propane, L.P. v. D & S GCTX LLC, 2025 WL 2429087, at

*2 (W.D. Tex. 2025) (holding that the extraordinary relief under Rule 65 must be

“unequivocally show[n].”); see also Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 355–56 (5th Cir.

2009) (“Only under ‘extraordinary circumstances’ will this court reverse the denial of a

preliminary injunction.”).

Petitioner seeks immediate relief in the form of an order prohibiting his removal or

transfer so that he can challenge his immigration detention. To the extent petitioner seeks

to expedite a detention hearing, the Court considers this to be a shortcut around the

habeas process. Seeking injunctive relief that mirrors the relief requested in the habeas

petition is nothing more than a motion to decide the habeas petition now. See Garcia-

Aleman v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-00886, ECF No. 20 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025).

As for Petitioner’s request that the government be prohibited from transferring him,

“[m]ere speculation or conclusory allegations of an irreparable injury are insufficient to

entitle a movant to injunctive relief.” Lotter v. Lyons, 2025 WL 2946630, at *1 (W.D. Tex.

Aug. 22, 2025). Petitioner has failed to show a likelihood that he will be transferred to

another facility, and the Court is reluctant to set a precedent that would interfere with the

government’s need to transfer any immigration detainee with a pending habeas petition.

The case will proceed on an expedited briefing schedule before Magistrate Judge

Whitehurst when the Respondents have been served.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction (Record Document 4) is hereby DENIED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 6th day of January,

2026.

Kk Grtsces-/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE