Ngonganang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

SHARON NGEBI NGONGANANG CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-0415

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is a “Request for Motion to Stay in America During My Petition for

Habeas Corpus” (Record Document 4) filed by the habeas petitioner in this case, Sharon

Ngebi Ngonganang (“Petitioner”). Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cameroon, entered

the United States on January 14, 2025. See Record Document 1-2 at 3; Record

Document 1-3 at 9. She was detained upon entry and removal proceedings commenced.

See Record Document 1-3 at 9, 50. A master calendar hearing was held on April 10,

2025 and an Immigration Judge sustained the removal charge. See id. at 51. On August

18, 2025, Petitioner’s request for asylum, application for withholding of removal, and

application for Convention Against Torture were all denied. See id. at 61. Petitioner has

filed an appeal regarding this decision with the Board of Immigration Appeals. See id. at

32-49, 76-90. It appears that the Board of Immigration Appeals has not issued its

decision.

On February 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a Habeas Petition (Record Document 1) and

the instant Motion (Record Document 4). The Habeas Petition challenges the legality of

her continued detention beyond 90 days and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. See

Record Document 1-2 at 11. Specifically, Petitioner asks the Court for immediate release

because her detention is unconstitutional and in violation of the detention statute, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231.1 See id. In the instant motion, Petitioner requests to stay in America during the

pendency of her habeas petition. See Record Document 4 at 1. The Court construes

this request as a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Respondents from

removing Petitioner from the country during the pendency of her habeas case with this

Court.

An applicant for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) 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). 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.”).

1 Section 1231 governs detention of noncitizens who have final orders of removal.

Here, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's TRO motion

because she has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits as required to warrant

that extraordinary remedy. She has not identified specific respondents. The record also

does not establish that her continued detention is presumptively unreasonable under

Section 1231 or Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Additionally, on February

12, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum Order advising Petitioner that she failed

submit either the $5.00 to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a completed

application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Record Document 6. Petitioner was given

thirty (30) days to either send $5.00 or to complete the in forma pauperis application on

approved forms. See id. She was warned that failure to comply would result in her

habeas petition being stricken. See id. Thus, in light of all of these circumstances,

Petitioner’s “Request for Motion to Stay in America During My Petition for Habeas Corpus”

(Record Document 4) must be DENIED at this time.

IT 1S SO ORDERED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 19th day of February,

2026.

Dpticcecs. /

□□□ MAURICE HICKS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE