Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

YORDANIS A CAMPBELL AGRAMONTE CASE NO. 1:26-CV-01165 SEC P

#A213-401-044

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

WARDEN WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

DETENTION FACILITY ET AL

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is a Motion to Prevent Transfer [doc. 2] filed by Geoel Varona

Agramonte, as next friend of petitioner Yordanis Campbell Agramonte, a native of Cuba

who is in ICE custody at Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. Through the

motion, which the court construes as a request for a temporary restraining order, the

petitioner requests that the court restrain respondent from transferring him during the

pendency of his habeas proceedings.

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 (Sth 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 (Sth Cir. 2009)

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

preliminary injunction.”’).

Petitioner cannot satisfy the second factor under his request by showing a substantial

threat of irreparable injury. The court’s jurisdiction attaches with the filing of the habeas

petition and is not destroyed by any subsequent transfer. Pena Ramirez v. Noem, 2025 WL

3443186, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2025) (citing Griffin v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290 (Sth

Cir. 2014)). Petitioner fails to show how remaining in detention in Louisiana assists him in

communicating with his next friend, who is located in Kentucky. Additionally, 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 Motion [doc. 2] is therefore

DENIED.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 15th day of April, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2