Josue Nicudemos Valenzuela Ulloa v. Warden of Limestone County Detention Center and Todd Lyons-Acting Director of ICE

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

JOSUE NICUDEMOS VALENZUELA § ULLOA, § § Petitioner, § § No. 6:26-CV-00484-LS v. § § WARDEN OF LIMESTONE COUNTY § DETENTION CENTER AND TODD § LYONS-ACTING DIRECTOR OF ICE, § § Respondents. §

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELEASE AND TO PREVENT TRANSFER Petitioner Josue Nicudemos Valenzuela Ulloa filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 He also filed an emergency motion for immediate release2 and to prevent his transfer while his habeas petition is pending.3 For the following reasons, the Court denies Petitioner’s motions. I. LEGAL STANDARD. The elements required to grant a motion for injunctive relief are: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. 4

1 ECF No. 1. 2 ECF No. 3. 3 ECF No. 4. 4 Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987). When the government is the opposing party, the third and fourth elements merge.5 The district court has discretion as to whether to grant or deny injunctive relief.6 II. ANALYSIS. “The purpose of a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] is not to give the

plaintiff the ultimate relief it seeks.”7 Instead, it “is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury until the court renders a decision the merits.”8 Petitioner requests that he be released.9 But the ultimate relief he seeks is also release from custody.10 The Court can only preserve the status quo, not provide Petitioner with the ultimate relief requested. With respect to Petitioner’s request not to be transferred,11 the Court notes that transfer would not impair the Court’s jurisdiction over Petitioner’s habeas petition. “[J]urisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.”12 Therefore, the Court will not grant this request either. III. CONCLUSION

For this reason, Petitioner’s motion for immediate release [ECF No. 3] and motion to prevent transfer [ECF No. 4] are denied. SO ORDERED.

5 Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 700 F. Supp. 3d 539, 544 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435–36 (2009)). 6 Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984). 7 WarnerVision Ent. Inc. v. Empire of Carolina, Inc., 101 F.3d 259, 261 (2d Cir. 1996). 8 Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 21-11159, 2022 WL 486610, at *4 (5th Cir. 2022). 9 ECF No. 3 at 1–2. 10 ECF No. 1 at 7. 11 ECF No. 4 at 1–2. 12 Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985)); see also McClure v. Hopper, 577 F.2d 938, 939–40 (5th Cir. 1978) (“Jurisdiction attached upon the initial filing for habeas corpus relief. It was not destroyed upon the transfer of petitioner and accompanying custodial change.”). SIGNED and ENTERED on July 29, 2026.

LEON SCHYDLOWER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE