Carlos Javier Pascua Martinez v. Warden, Prairireland Detention Center et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CARLOS JAVIER PASCUA § MARTINEZ, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-1854-X § WARDEN, PRAIRIRELAND § DETENTION CENTER et al., § § Respondents. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Carlos Javier Pascua Martinez’s (Martinez) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). (Doc. 2). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the TRO request. A TRO serves to preserve the status quo at the timing the lawsuit was filed and prevent irreparable harm to the movant so a court can “render a meaningful decision after a trial on the merits.”1 To warrant the extraordinary relief of a TRO, the movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.2 1 Apex Grp. Cap. Advisors LLC v. Related Fund Mgmt. LLC, No. 3:25-CV-1627-X, 2025 WL 1869436, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2025) (Starr, J.) (citing Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974)). 2 Ladd v. Livingston, 777 F.3d 286, 288 (5th Cir. 2015). Preliminary relief should “not conclusively resolve legal disputes|,]” and thus a TRO is an inappropriate vehicle for granting ultimate relief.? Specifically, a court cannot render ultimate relief sought in a habeas petition—releasing a detainee—in the form of a preliminary injunction or TRO.* Martinez’s TRO seeks to upend these bedrock principles. First, it seeks to change the status quo at the time of the lawsuit. Martinez is in ICE custody and wants out.® But granting a TRO would just preserve the status quo of Martinez being in custody—something he obviously does not want. The Court DENIES Martinez’s TRO request. His habeas petition remains pending. IT ISSO ORDERED this 5th day of June, 2026.

Dads STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 200 (2025). 4 Ramirez v. Noem, 6:25-CV-035-H, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2026) (Hendrix, J.) (citing Ramirez Rios v. Noem, 3:25-CV-522, 2025 WL 32200985, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2025)). 5 Doc. 2.