Annerys Mariana Cano Alvarez v. South Louisiana Ice Processing Center, Et Al.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedMarch 9, 2026
Docket6:26-cv-00696
StatusUnknown

This text of Annerys Mariana Cano Alvarez v. South Louisiana Ice Processing Center, Et Al. (Annerys Mariana Cano Alvarez v. South Louisiana Ice Processing Center, 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
Annerys Mariana Cano Alvarez v. South Louisiana Ice Processing Center, Et Al., (W.D. La. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

ANNERYS MARIANA CANO CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-0696 ALVAREZ

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK

SOUTH LOUISIANA ICE PROCESSING CENTER, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

ORDER

The Petitioner, Annerys Mariana Cano Alvarez, simultaneously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, R. Doc. 1, and an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, R. Doc. 2. The habeas petition, R. Doc. 1, is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for consideration and disposition. Furthermore, because the preliminary relief sought, release or a bond hearing, mirrors the ultimate relief sought in the habeas petition, the application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is DENIED. The Petitioner’s request for immediate release is improper because one cannot skip the line by dressing a habeas petition in TRO clothes. See Rodriguez v. Lyons, No. CV 25-1926, 2025 WL 3553742, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 8, 2025) (denying a “motion to decide my habeas petition now.”); Peters v. Davis, No. 6:17-cv-595, 2018 WL 11463602, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2018) (explaining that a TRO is not purposed “to give a plaintiff the ultimate relief he seeks”); Lindell v. United States, 82 F.4th 614, 618 (8th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo; it is not to give the movant the ultimate relief he seeks.”). The Petitioner’s demand for a bond hearing is unavailing because the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that illegal aliens are not entitled to such a hearing, even if they have resided in the United States for years. Victor Buenrostro-Mendez v. Pamela Bondi, et al., 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 9th day of March, 2026.

Ci Vor ah — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

Michael Lindell v. United States
82 F.4th 614 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Annerys Mariana Cano Alvarez v. South Louisiana Ice Processing Center, Et Al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annerys-mariana-cano-alvarez-v-south-louisiana-ice-processing-center-et-lawd-2026.