# Lopez-Velasquez

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · January 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236538

## Case

- **Full name:** Jorge Antonio Lopez Valasquez v. Brian Acuna, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** January 6, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236538

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary relief and rarely issued.”

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236538. Public record. Not legal advice.