Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla v. Kristi Noem et al

W.D. Louisiana

Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla v. Kristi Noem et al

DecidedDecember 23, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02074

StatusUnknown

This text of Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla v. Kristi Noem et al (Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla v. Kristi Noem et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla v. Kristi Noem et al, (W.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

ALEJANDRO NICOLAS PINEDA PERLA CASE NO. 2:25-CV-02074 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

KRISTI NOEM ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

ORDER

Before the Court is “Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 2) filed by Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla wherein Petitioner requests a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) pending adjudication of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending the final disposition of their habeas petition.1 Specifically, Petitioner requests immediate release from custody and that Respondents be ordered to conduct a bond hearing. The very basis of a habeas action is to challenge the statutory or constitutional basis for detention. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 (2020) (“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and … the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). Seeking injunctive relief that mirrors the relief requested in the habeas petition is nothing more than a motion

1 Doc. 1. to decide my habeas petition now. See Garcia-Aleman v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-00886, ECF No. 20 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025)). Here, Plaintiff is seeking immediate release or in the alternative, that the Court order “Respondents [ ] to conduct a bond hearing at which the government must bear the burden of justifying Petitioner’s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.”? The Court considers this to be a short cut around the habeas process. The preliminary relief sought—a bond hearing—amirrors the ultimate relief sought in the habeas Petition, and the arguments for both are the same. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is DENIED, and this matter is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of an expedited briefing schedule and further disposition. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers on this 23rd day_of December, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

ALEJANDRO NICOLAS PINEDA PERLA CASE NO. 2:25-CV-02074 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

KRISTI NOEM ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

ORDER

Before the Court is “Petitioners’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 2) filed by Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla wherein Petitioner requests a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) pending adjudication of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending the final disposition of their habeas petition.1 Specifically, Petitioner requests immediate release from custody and that Respondents be ordered to conduct a bond hearing. The very basis of a habeas action is to challenge the statutory or constitutional basis for detention. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 (2020) (“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and … the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). Seeking injunctive relief that mirrors the relief requested in the habeas petition is nothing more than a motion

1 Doc. 1. to decide my habeas petition now. See Garcia-Aleman v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-00886, ECF No. 20 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025)). Here, Plaintiff is seeking immediate release or in the alternative, that the Court order “Respondents [ ] to conduct a bond hearing at which the government must bear the burden of justifying Petitioner’s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.”? The Court considers this to be a short cut around the habeas process. The preliminary relief sought—a bond hearing—amirrors the ultimate relief sought in the habeas Petition, and the arguments for both are the same. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is DENIED, and this matter is hereby referred to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of an expedited briefing schedule and further disposition. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers on this 23rd day_of December, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alejandro Nicolas Pineda Perla v. Kristi Noem et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alejandro-nicolas-pineda-perla-v-kristi-noem-et-al-lawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack