The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JOSE PATRICIO-MORALES CASE NO. 3:26-CV-00877 SEC P
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
TIMOTHY DUCOTE ET AL MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion for Reconsideration [doc. 16] filed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) by petitioner Jose Patricio-Morales. Petitioner, a Mexican national in ICE
detention, seeks a reversal of the court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Respondents oppose the motion. Doc. 18.
“Rule 59(e) relief is appropriate (1) where there has been an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously
unavailable; or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact.” McAlpine v. Porsche Cars N. Am.
Inc., 428 F. App'x 261, 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing Schiller v. Physicians Res. Group
Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003)). “‘Manifest error’ is one that ‘is plain and indisputable,
and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law.’” Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394
F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 195
(1st Cir. 2004)). “While the district courts do have ‘considerable discretion in deciding whether to
grant or deny a motion to alter a judgment,’ denial of Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend is
favored.” Brown v. Louisiana State Senate, 2013 WL 5603232, at *1 (M.D. La. Oct. 11, 2013)
(quoting Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995)). A motion to alter or amend is “an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 396
(Sth Cir. 2021).
Petitioner seeks Rule 59(e) relief in reliance on a California district court decision
certifying a class of individuals with pending principal or derivative U visa petitions, T visa
petitions, or VAWA petitions whom ICE has detained or seeks to detain for civil immigration
enforcement. The district court stayed ICE guidance issued in 2025, which provided that ICE
officers are not required to consider an immigrant’s potential VAWA qualification in deciding
whether to take civil immigration enforcement action. Jmmigration Ctr. for Women and Children
v. Noem (“ICWC”), 2026 WL 1455004 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2026), appeal filed, No. 26-3961 (9th
Cir.). Petitioner also cites progress in his appeal before the BIA as a change in circumstance
prompting reconsideration. Doc. 16. As another court in this district recently pointed out, JCWC
remains pending in another district and is presently in a preliminary posture. Accordingly, other
courts have declined to grant preliminary injunctive relief to purported class members. See Rauda
Choto v. Ladwig, 2026 WL 1652576, at *1—*2 (W.D. La. Jun. 8, 2026) (collecting cases). Since
that time, the government has also filed an appeal of the district court’s decision in ICWC.
Additionally, petitioner’s BIA appeal was pending when the court entered its judgment. Progress
therein is routine and does not warrant the extraordinary relief provided by Rule 59(e).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration [doc. 16] be DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 20th day of July, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE