Hector Daniel Castaneda-Aguirre v. Warden Pine Prairie Ice Processing Center, ET AL.

W.D. Louisiana

Hector Daniel Castaneda-Aguirre v. Warden Pine Prairie Ice Processing Center, ET AL.

District Court, W.D. Louisiana·Decided June 8, 2026·No. 6:26-cv-01833·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

HECTOR DANIEL CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-1833 CASTANEDA-AGUIRRE

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK

WARDEN PINE PRAIRIE ICE PROCESSING CENTER, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

ORDER

Hector Daniel Castaneda-Aguirre (“Petitioner”) filed a deficient petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Record Document 1, and a motion for injunctive relief, which the pro se Petitioner called a Motion to Enjoin Transfer, Record Document 2. Once cured, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Record Document 1, is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for recommendation. For the following reasons, the motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. In his motion for injunctive relief, the Petitioner seeks a temporary stay of his removal. Even when couched as a request to “preserve the status quo,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has made clear: “[a] request for stay of removal is a challenge to a removal order[,]” and the district court lacks “jurisdiction to grant such relief[.]” Imran v. Harper, No. 25-30370, 2026 WL 93131, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026). Moreover, although this Court has “the power to preserve existing conditions while it [determines] its own authority to grant injunctive relief[,]” the Petitioner has not alleged any sort of lawful status, and without such, the Court declines to grant him temporary relief. Cf Umanzor Maldonado v. Lyons, No. 26-112, 2026 WL 196521, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026) (restraining removal during habeas proceeding where noncitizen had deferred action status). In the alternative, the Petitioner asks for an order prohibiting his transfer to another jurisdiction. Such a transfer would not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, and therefore, injunctive relief is unwarranted. Griffin v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Jurisdiction attached on that initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it was not destroyed by the transfer of petitioner and accompanying custodial change.”). DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 8th day of June, 2026.

Uy ©. Ve ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

HECTOR DANIEL CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-1833 CASTANEDA-AGUIRRE

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C. VAN HOOK

WARDEN PINE PRAIRIE ICE PROCESSING CENTER, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

ORDER

Hector Daniel Castaneda-Aguirre (“Petitioner”) filed a deficient petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Record Document 1, and a motion for injunctive relief, which the pro se Petitioner called a Motion to Enjoin Transfer, Record Document 2. Once cured, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Record Document 1, is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for recommendation. For the following reasons, the motion for injunctive relief is DENIED. In his motion for injunctive relief, the Petitioner seeks a temporary stay of his removal. Even when couched as a request to “preserve the status quo,” the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has made clear: “[a] request for stay of removal is a challenge to a removal order[,]” and the district court lacks “jurisdiction to grant such relief[.]” Imran v. Harper, No. 25-30370, 2026 WL 93131, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026). Moreover, although this Court has “the power to preserve existing conditions while it [determines] its own authority to grant injunctive relief[,]” the Petitioner has not alleged any sort of lawful status, and without such, the Court declines to grant him temporary relief. Cf Umanzor Maldonado v. Lyons, No. 26-112, 2026 WL 196521, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026) (restraining removal during habeas proceeding where noncitizen had deferred action status). In the alternative, the Petitioner asks for an order prohibiting his transfer to another jurisdiction. Such a transfer would not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, and therefore, injunctive relief is unwarranted. Griffin v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Jurisdiction attached on that initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it was not destroyed by the transfer of petitioner and accompanying custodial change.”). DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this 8th day of June, 2026.

Hector Daniel Castaneda-Aguirre v. Warden Pine Prairie Ice Processing Center, ET AL., (W.D. La. 2026).

Pincite

Hector Daniel Castaneda-Aguirre v. Warden Pine Prairie Ice Processing Center, ET AL. (Hector Daniel Castaneda-Aguirre v. Warden Pine Prairie Ice Processing Center, ET AL.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related