Luis Augusto Bermudez Fleire v. Warden, Cimarron Correctional Facility

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

LUIS AUGUSTO BERMUDEZ ) FLEIRE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1208-D ) WARDEN, CIMARRON ) CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ) ) Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Luis Augusto Bermudez Fleire, appearing pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1.1 United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 8. Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) requesting immediate release from detention. Doc. 5. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends the Court deny Petitioner’s motion for TRO. I. TRO requirements. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1), a court may only grant a motion for TRO,

1 Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless otherwise indicated. without notice, if the moving party has complied with certain requirements, including “certif[ying] in writing any efforts made to give notice [to the non-

movant] and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Petitioner has not complied with those requirements here as he has not submitted to the Court any certification of efforts made to give notice to Respondent before filing the motion. Petitioner appears pro se, but he must

follow the same rules as any other litigant. See Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corrs., 507 F.3d 1246, 1247 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding a pro se litigant “to the same rules of procedure as other litigants”). The Court should deny the motion for TRO. See, e.g., Bahadorani v.

Bondi, No. CIV-25-1091-PRW, Doc. 11 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 24, 2025) (denying temporary restraining order when the petitioner disregarded Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)); Honeycutt v. Mitchell, No. CIV-08-140-W, 2008 WL 4694226, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2008) (recognizing that a temporary restraining order is

“an extraordinary remedy, appropriate only when the procedural safeguards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) are scrupulously honored”). II. Recommendation and notice of right to object. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court

deny Petitioner’s motion for TRO. Doc. 5. The undersigned advises Petitioner of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court on or before June 18, 2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Petitioner that failure to make a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore

v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and Recommendation does not terminate the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in this matter. ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2026.

Aga Ler» | SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE