# Acuna

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11344945

## Case

- **Full name:** Jesus Acuna v. Warden Jena/LaSalle Detention Facility, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 7, 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/11344945

## 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

JESUS ACUNA CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-0979

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

WARDEN JENA/LASALLE DETENTION MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
FACILITY, ET AL.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Jesus Acuna’s (“Petitioner”) Motion to Prevent
Transfer Out of the State of Louisiana Pending Habeas Proceedings (Record Document
4). Petitioner, who is currently detained at the Jena/LaSalle Detention Facility in
Louisiana, submits that any transfer would interfere with this Court’s ability to effectively
review and adjudicate his Habeas Petition, which challenges the legality of his continued
detention. See id.
While not titled as such, Petitioner seeks emergency injunctive relief in the instant
motion. 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). 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 requests that Respondents be prohibited from transferring him out of the
State of Louisiana during the pendency of his habeas proceeding. “Mere 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 Respondents’ need to
transfer any immigration detainee with a pending habeas petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Prevent Transfer Out of the State of
Louisiana Pending Habeas Proceedings (Record Document 4) is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 7th day of May, 2026.

hei: aff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11344945. Public record. Not legal advice.