# Ngonganang

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · February 19, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11268188

## Case

- **Full name:** Sharon Ngebi Ngonganang v. Unknown Defendant
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 19, 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/11268188

## 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
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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11268188. Public record. Not legal advice.