# Mora

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · April 10, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11324174

## Case

- **Full name:** Michel Mojarena Mora v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** April 10, 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/11324174

## 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
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

MICHEL MOJARENA MORA #A089-095-305 CASE NO. 6:26-CV-01119 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
ENFORCEMENT

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [doc. 2] filed by
petitioner Michel Mojarena Mora, seeking a stay of removal and an order prohibiting his
transfer during the pendency of his habeas proceedings. Mr. Mora, a native of Cuba, states
that he was taken into immigration custody on February 20, 2026, pursuant to a removal
order issued in December 2022. Doc. 1, p. 4; doc. 1, att. 2, p. 3. He challenges his overstay
in detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Doc. 1, att. 1.
An applicant for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction
must demonstrate each of the following: (1) a substantial likelihood that his cause will
succeed on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not
granted, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm that the injunction
might do to the opposing party, and (4) that granting the injunction will not disserve the
public interest. Misquitta v. Warden Pine Prairie ICE Processing Ctr., 353 F.Supp.3d 518,
521 (W.D. La. 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. Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2017). Courts should deny such
motions more often than not. 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].”); 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.”’).
Here the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE petitioner’s TRO motion
because he has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits as required to warrant that
extraordinary remedy. The length of his detention exceeds the six month period found
presumptively reasonable in Zadvydas. Accordingly, he cannot show a likelihood of
success on the merits at this point and the court hereby ORDERS that the Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order [doc. 2] be DENIED. The petition [doc. 1] will be reviewed
by the magistrate judge once the deficiencies are corrected.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 10th day of April, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11324174. Public record. Not legal advice.